Honesty and the Art of Debate

shagg · Dec 14, 2015

I've been here a while, I mostly lurk, but I occasionally come out of the shadows to post something. I came here initially because I knew how ignorant I was concerning much of politics, and it bothered me. I felt like the very definition of Low Information Voter when it came time to cast my vote, and at some point it became obvious to me how, when I did attempt any kind of political debate, I was repeating talking points, had little to back them up with, and that I had basically been raised in a moderate - left household and never bothered to think beyond what I had accepted on faith. In light of this, it's no mystery on why I view debate the way that I do.

2 Years later, I still visit DP regularly and feel like I am much more aware of the general political landscape, the positions of various persons of note, etc. I'm also much more familiar with the arguments and perspectives of the opposition, those that oppose many things which I either accepted on faith or were presented to me as common sense at a young age, and to whom I had previously done nothing more than try to find new ways to ridicule while sounding witty. Perhaps I'm getting older, but I can't help but look back and feel that my old approach was ... juvenile. My views on some things have changed. My views on other things have simply been cemented in by this additional information. I am not ashamed of either, for I seek the truth whether my initial position is true or not.

On a whim, I googled "the art of debate", a term which, in my own head, I had taken to calling it.

All top results were "How to win a debate every time" "understanding and exploiting your opponents weaknesses in debate" "This approach will help you defeat any opponent in open debate" etc etc.

And it occurred to me, maybe I'm the minority here (both in the world and on DP lol).

I see debate as, at the risk of sounding extremely corny, a quest for truth.

Most, it seems, see debate as a duel. And in this duel dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentation, fallacy, offensive/emotionally charged yet factually empty statements, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty are but tools to be shamelessly used when the need arises. The duel must be won, by whatever means necessary. It is a contest, with a winner and a loser.

Now, I don't wish to invoke a false dichotomy. This isn't black and white, but a whole spectrum of grays, where few if any fall on the far extremes of either end. But still, I can't help but see this "win by whatever means necessary" mentality in a lot of posts. When did the truth become so ... unimportant? Is this simply a case of different people having different visions of the truth? Theoretically, if both individuals are inclined towards honest debate, yet hold opposing views, they should be able to, through debate, pin point where the disagreement originates from (this does happen, although not as often as it should). It may be a case of differing definitions, or simply having different moral standards, a combination of the two or something else entirely. But in this hypothetical debate an agreement should be possible, where the debaters, understanding each others view as well as their own, can say "we see X differently, and we define Y differently, and that's why we have fundamentally different answers to the same question", shake hands and move on. But there are so many posts/threads where 1 poster runs in circles of (painfully) obviously flawed logic, exhausting one opponent after another with unsupported talking points, emotional statements that contain little or no facts, generally ignoring the logic behind the opposition, and/or deliberately spinning something so hard that it becomes difficult to see what it started off as. To debate with such is utterly unproductive in the quest for truth.

How do you see debate?

Did you come here to sharpen your dueling skills? In search of truth? To push a certain view? To channel your aggression into something that won't get you arrested?

Ancient Herald · Dec 14, 2015

I used to see it in four different was.

Formal, with uses rules of logic

Informal, but civil, as a means to exchange information to learn about people and things, rules of logic are a personal choice

Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch contradictory style

And an argument, to trash and bash people for fun and laughs.

Now i only see all discussion as combative, with only the one intent to trash and bash people and have fun and entertainment at their misery.

That's how i see things.

Oh, and there is no such thing as honesty.

No maturity or objectivity.

celticwar17 · Dec 14, 2015

I generally try to seek truth in every debate.... that's the whole point of it for me... I try to come up with every possible rebuttal I have to make sure if the other persons argument is able to convince me or not. I am not one who's positions cannot/willnot change, I've had my opinion change on certain things here and I've been totally wrong before too!

A lot of times I see petty and emotionally reactionary posts...unfortunately. I'm guilty of it too at times... but generally I try to aim toward truth, and learning something from the exchange.

Gardener · Dec 14, 2015

I see honesty in debate in forums such as this as being inversely proportional to the identification with a political label or to a specific class of poster.

Once a person identifies too strongly to a group, they see themselves threatened when the group is threatened, and so circle the wagons -- usually by throwing truth out the window.

shagg · Dec 14, 2015

Gardener said:
I see honesty in debate in forums such as this as being inversely proportional to the identification with a political label or to a specific class of poster.

Once a person identifies too strongly to a group, they see themselves threatened when the group is threatened, and so circle the wagons -- usually by throwing truth out the window.

In this situation, honesty can even be seen as a liability or a weakness. An individual can even risk exclusion for not being dishonest and protecting the groups interests (see also, political parties).

Gardener · Dec 14, 2015

shagg said:
In this situation, honesty can even be seen as a liability or a weakness. An individual can even risk exclusion for not being dishonest and protecting the groups interests (see also, political parties).

Oh, definitely. Honesty = heresy to those dogmatic individuals committed to their group. On the left, political correctness demands absolute conformity and lack of any original thinking as does religious fundamentalism on the right.

In my jaundiced view of human history, I see so much of it as involving 99 townspeople with pitchforks and torches chasing that one guy who dared to be different. Forums such as these do nothing to dissuade me from such an image.

haymarket · Dec 14, 2015

MY number one complaint here concerning what constitutes debate is very simple: when a person makes claim of fact and is challenged on its truth or accuracy, it is always 1000% incumbent upon the maker of the original claim to document it with verifiable evidence. Nobody has the slightest responsibility to prove them wrong. The complete responsibility is upon the maker of the claim of fact.

My second pet peeve are the people who are challenged and the think the way out is to pretend that "I already proved that". And when you ask them to reproduce that proof or even to provide the link or the number of the post, they refuse to do so and will spend page after page after page simply saying "I already did that" when they could spend a fraction of the time simply telling you in what post the provided the evidence. Of course, almost always THEY NEVER DID PROVIDE THE PROOF and now are simply trying to dishonestly get out of a corner other own creation.

shagg · Dec 14, 2015

haymarket said:
MY number one complaint here concerning what constitutes debate is very simple: when a person makes claim of fact and is challenged on its truth or accuracy, it is always 1000% incumbent upon the maker of the original claim to document it with verifiable evidence. Nobody has the slightest responsibility to prove them wrong. The complete responsibility is upon the maker of the claim of fact.

Burden of Proof is one of those often abused things, whether it is being ignored or illegitimately shifted.

haymarket said:
My second pet peeve are the people who are challenged and the think the way out is to pretend that "I already proved that". And when you ask them to reproduce that proof or even to provide the link or the number of the post, they refuse to do so and will spend page after page after page simply saying "I already did that" when they could spend a fraction of the time simply telling you in what post the provided the evidence. Of course, almost always THEY NEVER DID PROVIDE THE PROOF and now are simply trying to dishonestly get out of a corner other own creation.

A blatant form of (shameless) dishonesty in debate, for sure. I don't understand people who have to be right 100% of the time, and are willing to push on even after they understand their position is wrong or deeply flawed. Is admitting to human error so bad?

Riveroaks · Dec 14, 2015

shagg said:
I've been here a while, I mostly lurk, but I occasionally come out of the shadows to post something. I came here initially because I knew how ignorant I was concerning much of politics, and it bothered me. I felt like the very definition of Low Information Voter when it came time to cast my vote, and at some point it became obvious to me how, when I did attempt any kind of political debate, I was repeating talking points, had little to back them up with, and that I had basically been raised in a moderate - left household and never bothered to think beyond what I had accepted on faith. In light of this, it's no mystery on why I view debate the way that I do.

2 Years later, I still visit DP regularly and feel like I am much more aware of the general political landscape, the positions of various persons of note, etc. I'm also much more familiar with the arguments and perspectives of the opposition, those that oppose many things which I either accepted on faith or were presented to me as common sense at a young age, and to whom I had previously done nothing more than try to find new ways to ridicule while sounding witty. Perhaps I'm getting older, but I can't help but look back and feel that my old approach was ... juvenile. My views on some things have changed. My views on other things have simply been cemented in by this additional information. I am not ashamed of either, for I seek the truth whether my initial position is true or not.

On a whim, I googled "the art of debate", a term which, in my own head, I had taken to calling it.

All top results were "How to win a debate every time" "understanding and exploiting your opponents weaknesses in debate" "This approach will help you defeat any opponent in open debate" etc etc.

And it occurred to me, maybe I'm the minority here (both in the world and on DP lol).

I see debate as, at the risk of sounding extremely corny, a quest for truth.

Most, it seems, see debate as a duel. And in this duel dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentation, fallacy, offensive/emotionally charged yet factually empty statements, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty are but tools to be shamelessly used when the need arises. The duel must be won, by whatever means necessary. It is a contest, with a winner and a loser.

Now, I don't wish to invoke a false dichotomy. This isn't black and white, but a whole spectrum of grays, where few if any fall on the far extremes of either end. But still, I can't help but see this "win by whatever means necessary" mentality in a lot of posts. When did the truth become so ... unimportant? Is this simply a case of different people having different visions of the truth? Theoretically, if both individuals are inclined towards honest debate, yet hold opposing views, they should be able to, through debate, pin point where the disagreement originates from (this does happen, although not as often as it should). It may be a case of differing definitions, or simply having different moral standards, a combination of the two or something else entirely. But in this hypothetical debate an agreement should be possible, where the debaters, understanding each others view as well as their own, can say "we see X differently, and we define Y differently, and that's why we have fundamentally different answers to the same question", shake hands and move on. But there are so many posts/threads where 1 poster runs in circles of (painfully) obviously flawed logic, exhausting one opponent after another with unsupported talking points, emotional statements that contain little or no facts, generally ignoring the logic behind the opposition, and/or deliberately spinning something so hard that it becomes difficult to see what it started off as. To debate with such is utterly unproductive in the quest for truth.

How do you see debate?

Did you come here to sharpen your dueling skills? In search of truth? To push a certain view? To channel your aggression into something that won't get you arrested?

INQUIRY is a quest for truth.

DEBATE is a cat and mouse game where you try to get someone to say something they cannot justify.

Riveroaks · Dec 14, 2015

Gardener said:
Oh, definitely. Honesty = heresy to those dogmatic individuals committed to their group. On the left, political correctness demands absolute conformity and lack of any original thinking as does religious fundamentalism on the right.

In my jaundiced view of human history, I see so much of it as involving 99 townspeople with pitchforks and torches chasing that one guy who dared to be different. Forums such as these do nothing to dissuade me from such an image.

A nice Scottish claymore broadsword should handle 99 pitchforks quite well.

The modern repeating carbine rifle works better still.

bg85 · Dec 14, 2015

shagg said:
Burden of Proof is one of those often abused things, whether it is being ignored or illegitimately shifted.

A blatant form of (shameless) dishonesty in debate, for sure. I don't understand people who have to be right 100% of the time, and are willing to push on even after they understand their position is wrong or deeply flawed. Is admitting to human error so bad?

it's not so much admission of the error that's difficult. what's difficult is what happens next. if you admit to yourself you were wrong about one thing, it opens up the possibility that you could be wrong about many things and that you may need to make some major changes in order to adjust to the newly discovered truth. this scares most people, in my opinion.

shagg · Dec 14, 2015

Riveroaks said:
INQUIRY is a quest for truth.

Inquiry seems too casual and informal. One might get away with skirting around the edges of the rules of logic. When seeking verification for the answer to your inquiry, a debate is likely anyway.

Riveroaks said:
DEBATE is a cat and mouse game where you try to get someone to say something they cannot justify.

Mid debate, through new information or an improved understanding of the opposition, you realize you might be wrong. You're saying you would do what you can to still come out on top? You don't care if you're wrong as long as you win? Do you ask the question that makes it clearer as to the truth of the matter, or do you perform mental gymnastics trying to avoid it?

Riveroaks · Dec 14, 2015

shagg said:
Inquiry seems too casual and informal. One might get away with skirting around the edges of the rules of logic. When seeking verification for the answer to your inquiry, a debate is likely anyway.

Mid debate, through new information or an improved understanding of the opposition, you realize you might be wrong. You're saying you would do what you can to still come out on top? You don't care if you're wrong as long as you win? Do you ask the question that makes it clearer as to the truth of the matter, or do you perform mental gymnastics trying to avoid it?

I create complex long syllogisms (if/then statements) with factual foundations and see if anyone can break the chain of deduction or come up with better facts.

For me debate is inquiry. But I meet a lot of douche bags who just want to argue like their mother when she was trying to get them to clean their own room.

shagg · Dec 14, 2015

bg85 said:
it's not so much admission of the error that's difficult. what's difficult is what happens next. if you admit to yourself you were wrong about one thing, it opens up the possibility that you could be wrong about many things and that you may need to make some major changes in order to adjust to the newly discovered truth. this scares most people, in my opinion.

Reminds me of the history of the catholic church :lamo

Seriously though, the world would be a better place if people were more willing to doubt their own positions and engage in a little introspection. It's always been a routine thing for me. I'm far more afraid of believing something which is false to be true, and the mistakes I might make because of that. Discovering such things is a relief, since then I can assess the damage done, fix it if possible, make amends if not, and feel a little more confident in my perception of the world.

Mycroft · Dec 14, 2015

shagg said:
I've been here a while, I mostly lurk, but I occasionally come out of the shadows to post something. I came here initially because I knew how ignorant I was concerning much of politics, and it bothered me. I felt like the very definition of Low Information Voter when it came time to cast my vote, and at some point it became obvious to me how, when I did attempt any kind of political debate, I was repeating talking points, had little to back them up with, and that I had basically been raised in a moderate - left household and never bothered to think beyond what I had accepted on faith. In light of this, it's no mystery on why I view debate the way that I do.

2 Years later, I still visit DP regularly and feel like I am much more aware of the general political landscape, the positions of various persons of note, etc. I'm also much more familiar with the arguments and perspectives of the opposition, those that oppose many things which I either accepted on faith or were presented to me as common sense at a young age, and to whom I had previously done nothing more than try to find new ways to ridicule while sounding witty. Perhaps I'm getting older, but I can't help but look back and feel that my old approach was ... juvenile. My views on some things have changed. My views on other things have simply been cemented in by this additional information. I am not ashamed of either, for I seek the truth whether my initial position is true or not.

On a whim, I googled "the art of debate", a term which, in my own head, I had taken to calling it.

All top results were "How to win a debate every time" "understanding and exploiting your opponents weaknesses in debate" "This approach will help you defeat any opponent in open debate" etc etc.

And it occurred to me, maybe I'm the minority here (both in the world and on DP lol).

I see debate as, at the risk of sounding extremely corny, a quest for truth.

Most, it seems, see debate as a duel. And in this duel dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentation, fallacy, offensive/emotionally charged yet factually empty statements, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty are but tools to be shamelessly used when the need arises. The duel must be won, by whatever means necessary. It is a contest, with a winner and a loser.

Now, I don't wish to invoke a false dichotomy. This isn't black and white, but a whole spectrum of grays, where few if any fall on the far extremes of either end. But still, I can't help but see this "win by whatever means necessary" mentality in a lot of posts. When did the truth become so ... unimportant? Is this simply a case of different people having different visions of the truth? Theoretically, if both individuals are inclined towards honest debate, yet hold opposing views, they should be able to, through debate, pin point where the disagreement originates from (this does happen, although not as often as it should). It may be a case of differing definitions, or simply having different moral standards, a combination of the two or something else entirely. But in this hypothetical debate an agreement should be possible, where the debaters, understanding each others view as well as their own, can say "we see X differently, and we define Y differently, and that's why we have fundamentally different answers to the same question", shake hands and move on. But there are so many posts/threads where 1 poster runs in circles of (painfully) obviously flawed logic, exhausting one opponent after another with unsupported talking points, emotional statements that contain little or no facts, generally ignoring the logic behind the opposition, and/or deliberately spinning something so hard that it becomes difficult to see what it started off as. To debate with such is utterly unproductive in the quest for truth.

How do you see debate?

Did you come here to sharpen your dueling skills? In search of truth? To push a certain view? To channel your aggression into something that won't get you arrested?

I see debate...at least in this forum setting...as a means of expressing my viewpoints and supporting my viewpoints with existing data. I'm not really interested in a duel kind of thing. I am willing to agree to disagree with anyone.

What irritates me most of all is conversing with the person who only expresses their viewpoint and either doesn't support it with anything or supports it with biased hackery-type articles. Those kinds of discussion usually devolve into the other person resorting to sarcasm, hyperbole or insults...or me just dismissing the person.

Excon · Dec 14, 2015

shagg said:
A blatant form of (shameless) dishonesty in debate, for sure. I don't understand people who have to be right 100% of the time, and are willing to push on even after they understand their position is wrong or deeply flawed. Is admitting to human error so bad?

The problem with the presentation to which you responded, is that often the one complaining (that someone had not done something which they claim they had), either had not read or totally ignored what was posted and failed to respond to what was actually said.
That complainer does not get to later come back and demand information that was already posted, as it was their responsibility to read what what posted in the first place.
Complaining like that is dishonesty in debate and deflection.

Nilly · Dec 14, 2015

Gardener said:
Oh, definitely. Honesty = heresy to those dogmatic individuals committed to their group. On the left, political correctness demands absolute conformity and lack of any original thinking as does religious fundamentalism on the right.

In my jaundiced view of human history, I see so much of it as involving 99 townspeople with pitchforks and torches chasing that one guy who dared to be different. Forums such as these do nothing to dissuade me from such an image.

Well the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both.

haymarket · Dec 15, 2015

Excon said:
The problem with the presentation to which you responded, is that often the one complaining (that someone had not done something which they claim they had), either had not read or totally ignored what was posted and failed to respond to what was actually said.
That complainer does not get to later come back and demand information that was already posted, as it was their responsibility to read what what posted in the first place.
Complaining like that is dishonesty in debate and deflection.

Okay -YOU opened the door. You want to go there. Fine.

And what huge obstacle ties anyones hands and prevents them simply saying
*** see post #34856 for the evidence you requested.......... OR
*** here is the evidence you requested.... and then present it.... or
*** here is a link to the evidence you requested?

NO - instead we get the cat chasing his tail in endless circles "I already did that and its your responsibility to read it... or find it ..."

When some complain that people ignore their evidence - I have found that it is NOT EVIDENCE they presented that was "ignored" but rather someone simply presented their beliefs or their premise and that was rejected with some argument attached. So then we get the same stuff stated over and over and over for page after page after page after page pretending that the entire world will not hear them.

They were heard. They were also refuted with verifiable evidence. Then their premise and argument was rejected with evidence.

Mr. Furley · Dec 15, 2015

Great OP

The idea is to gain knowledge, not to win a debate.

Sometimes I play devils advocate on forums to challenge things I believe and people I normally agree with. I try to find the truth on both sides, then put it together. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Or sometimes the truth is just so complicated that even after finding the truths on both sides, you almost need to reconstruct time lines to put things in context. Okay, I feel like I'm starting to just ramble on about nonsense.

I also have no problem admitting I was wrong. Which seems to be something that people are just not willing to do these days. So arrogant have people become that they rather look like a complete fool, than admit they were wrong. This is one of my biggest pet peeves about dealing with people online.

Mr. Furley · Dec 15, 2015

And since we're being honest....

I'm sometimes a dick to people in posts, in hopes that I'll provoke an intelligent response that tears apart whatever point I'm debating. It's like sometimes you have to challenge someone, to really get their knowledge and thoughts out of them. Sometimes you got to challenge them so they challenge you! Maybe that's just my lazy, immature approach. But I get civil the moment they start cooperating.

shagg · Dec 15, 2015

Excon said:
The problem with the presentation to which you responded, is that often the one complaining (that someone had not done something which they claim they had), either had not read or totally ignored what was posted and failed to respond to what was actually said.
That complainer does not get to later come back and demand information that was already posted, as it was their responsibility to read what what posted in the first place.
Complaining like that is dishonesty in debate and deflection.

All I can say is if this is the hurdle that caused your debate to devolve into a cycle of "no you look it up" then your heart just wasn't in it. At some point you have to ask yourself if you want to the debate to progress or not, and just go the extra mile so things can move along.

haymarket · Dec 15, 2015

shagg said:
All I can say is if this is the hurdle that caused your debate to devolve into a cycle of "no you look it up" then your heart just wasn't in it. At some point you have to ask yourself if you want to the debate to progress or not, and just go the extra mile so things can move along.

Well said. It has never made any sense that a person will take ten or more posts with all the time and energy that comes with it to say "no look it up" or "I already did - you go search in that hayfield for that needle" but they will not simply provide the post or link or information requested.

That screams they never did it in the first place and its just a dishonest ruse.

Excon · Dec 16, 2015

haymarket said:
Okay -YOU opened the door. You want to go there. Fine.

iLOL

You did.

haymarket said:
And what huge obstacle ties anyones hands and prevents them simply saying
*** see post #34856 for the evidence you requested.......... OR
*** here is the evidence you requested.... and then present it.... or
*** here is a link to the evidence you requested?

NO - instead we get the cat chasing his tail in endless circles "I already did that and its your responsibility to read it... or find it ..."

What exactly did you not understand about the following?

That complainer does not get to later come back and demand information that was already posted, as it was their responsibility to read what what posted in the first place.
Complaining like that is dishonesty in debate and deflection.

And your last statement is part of that dishonesty I spoke about.
All you had to do was click on the quote arrow to read what obviously wasn't.

haymarket said:
When some complain that people ignore their evidence - I have found that it is NOT EVIDENCE they presented that was "ignored" but rather someone simply presented their beliefs or their premise and that was rejected with some argument attached. So then we get the same stuff stated over and over and over for page after page after page after page pretending that the entire world will not hear them.

They were heard. They were also refuted with verifiable evidence. Then their premise and argument was rejected with evidence.

Your view is as skewed as it is wrong.

haymarket said:
Well said. It has never made any sense that a person will take ten or more posts with all the time and energy that comes with it to say "no look it up" or "I already did - you go search in that hayfield for that needle" but they will not simply provide the post or link or information requested.

That screams they never did it in the first place and its just a dishonest ruse.

Another false representation.

It is a usual diversionary tactic of those who have a failed argument to re-demand what has already been provided.

This isn't a situation where a person who hasn't been involved just happened into the debate. This is a situation where the person actually quoted what was said and did not refute it, and then one or two posts later act like it wasn't provided. That is on that person for their bs.

The simplest thing is for that complainer to click on the quotes arrow to follow the posts back to what they quoted and ignored.

shagg said:
All I can say is if this is the hurdle that caused your debate to devolve into a cycle of "no you look it up" then your heart just wasn't in it. At some point you have to ask yourself if you want to the debate to progress or not, and just go the extra mile so things can move along.

iLOL
One we were speaking of in-general.

You have now trying to make it about "your debate".

As for my heart not being in it. That is an absurd assumption.

Debate - Point, counter point/refutation.
Once the argument has been made it is up to the other (‘if there heart is in it’ d'oh!), if they are serious about the debate, to counter/refute.
That would be their responsibility, not someone else's. But ignoring it and acting like it wasn't said is dishonesty in debate.

Riveroaks · Dec 16, 2015

shagg said:
All I can say is if this is the hurdle that caused your debate to devolve into a cycle of "no you look it up" then your heart just wasn't in it. At some point you have to ask yourself if you want to the debate to progress or not, and just go the extra mile so things can move along.

The polite way of asking for a citation is simply "got a cite for that?"

For everything else there is the fallacy of "shifting the burden."

Ya gots ta know the diff.

_Sal · Dec 16, 2015

shagg said:
Did you come here to sharpen your dueling skills? In search of truth? To push a certain view? To channel your aggression into something that won't get you arrested?

yes, all of the above

it depends upon my mood, sometimes I want to drive home a point, sometimes a thread will give me a whole different perspective, sometimes a view completely opposed to mine will give me a feeling of "wow, that is exceptionally well presented even though I completely disagree". in those cases one has to truly respect they way they have laid out their argument

sometimes I just cringe at the simplicity of thought and the strength of their belief and it makes me feel sad for the human race

basically debate forums allow mental and emotional indulgence...it's safe to express one's views and walk away or to play the devil's advocate to stretch ourselves

truth is relative and coloured by our baggage, and experience, our IQ and EQ and our self confidence etc, truth can shuck and jive

I used to like having to argue the other side, that is always an eye opener

Honesty and the Art of Debate

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

Ancient Herald

Well-known member

celticwar17

Gardener

free market communist

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

Gardener

free market communist

haymarket

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

Riveroaks

Riveroaks

bg85

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

Riveroaks

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

Excon

Nilly

stb

haymarket

Mr. Furley

Member

Mr. Furley

Member

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

haymarket

Excon

Riveroaks

_Sal