# moon landings



## The Basket (Jul 6, 2007)

Truth or fiction?
Big fan of the moon landings...I buy it.

I've read lots of stuff and it seems real to me.

Similar to concorde...out of step tech which not around today.

Britain could build a mach 2 airliner...?...yeah right.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Are you saying the moon landings were staged?


----------



## The Basket (Jul 6, 2007)

Not me personally but that view does hold.

There seems to be very knowledgeable people on here whose opinion I would consider to be v.good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

There are too many eye-witnesses, contractors, and physical evidence to say the moon landings were a hoax.


----------



## Cyrano (Jul 6, 2007)




----------



## The Basket (Jul 6, 2007)

Joddrell Bank in Manchester is a giant radio telescope. It picked up signals from tha Apollo missions. They came from the moon....apparently.


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

I also know these stories...

Even I have no problems to explain most of the hoax-facts.
And I did it ones in a special forum.
After some hours I was totaly frustrated...
I was the "DEVIL" for them. And I got some "nice" replys like "Arschloch" (****hole) or "Spinner".
These were the same persons, who believe, that anti-tank granates with uranium core are "mini A-bombs" and they believe on "Red Mercury".

And dont forget, one experiment they stored on the moon (each landing) is still running from begin of the first day!

Each time they stored one or more laser-reflectors on the moon.
Rondomly till now they use them to determine the distance earth-moon.


----------



## Cyrano (Jul 6, 2007)




----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> I've been in similar arguments on the internet. It's like arguing with creationists or ID supporters - no matter how much evidence you pour in, they never correct their views. Conspiracy theories are a matter of faith.



100% correct.

But it makes always fun (for some hours) to discuss such "facts".


----------



## mkloby (Jul 6, 2007)

Come on - don't you think that if they were a hoax the US had at least one enemy (USSR) that would have presented strong credible evidence of the lie???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Come on - don't you think that if they were a hoax the US had at least one enemy (USSR) that would have presented strong credible evidence of the lie???


Bingo!


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

I just saw, that we have also such a "conspiracy" thread in this forum.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/kennedy-jfk-assasination-2763-6.html#post260819

So we are not better!

Ah...JFK-> "No conspiracy"!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Come on - don't you think that if they were a hoax the US had at least one enemy (USSR) that would have presented strong credible evidence of the lie???



Exactly if you had not said it I would have as well.

The US was being so closely watched by the Soviet Union that if the US had faked it, the Soviets would have been dropping dimes instantly and told the whole world and throwing out all sorts of evidence.

Another reason why I absolutely believe it happened. I met Armstrong at a school function and it was really neat to hear everything from the great man himself.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

T4.H said:


> I just saw, that we have also such a "conspiracy" thread in this forum.
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/kennedy-jfk-assasination-2763-6.html#post260819
> 
> ...



You can't compare the two - apples and oranges. With regards to the Kennedy assassination there are literary thousands of witnesses who could collaborate a conspiracy. The folks who bring up hoaxed moon landings do not have the education or technical background to back-up their claims. In the case of the Kennedy Assassination 3/4 of the conspiracy deals with eye witness testimony, photography evidence and government cover-ups that are now being exposed.

FOR EXAMPLE - yesterday there was a news story based on recently declassified documents the CIA attempted as late as 1963 to assassinate Castro - this was in total violation of a Presidential order. That meant Kennedy was still covertly supporting assassinating government leaders or the CIA was operating covertly against presidential orders. If the latter being the case it shows how the CIA was "rouge" during that period.

Here's the link....

Closest CIA bid to kill Castro was poisoned drink - Yahoo! News

The worse thing about the Kennedy assassination is the eye witnesses who saw the slightest thing contrary with regards to the warren commission report were purposely ignored. If indeed there WASN'T a conspiracy, what harm would of come in at least investigating some of these leads?!?!?!?


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You can't compare the two - apples and oranges. With regards to the Kennedy assassination there are literary thousands of witnesses who could collaborate a conspiracy. The folks who bring up hoaxed moon landings do not have the education or technical background to back-up their claims. In the case of the Kennedy Assassination 3/4 of the conspiracy deals with eye witness testimony, photography evidence and government cover-ups that are now being exposed.



Of course, I can compare both threads!!! BOTH ARE CONSPIRACY THREADS!!!
Not more or less! Don't let us discuss in this thread, what is the truth of the JFK story. The difference in both threads is, that in this one, the majority believes, that they landed on the moon, in the other, they believe in "conspiracy".
But you have to know, if the majority believes in something, it must not be the truth. "Conspiracy" is much more interesting, than "No conspiracy". Also for the press and TV!!!



T4.H said:


> Ah...JFK-> "No conspiracy"!


I put a smilie behind it! For me, this was just a little joke (in this thread).


And remember this:


Cyrano said:


> I've been in similar arguments on the internet. It's like arguing with creationists or ID supporters - no matter how much evidence you pour in, they never correct their views. Conspiracy theories are a matter of faith.




 apples and oranges are both fruits! 







FLYBOYJ said:


> FOR EXAMPLE - yesterday there was a news story based on recently declassified documents the CIA attempted as late as 1963 to assassinate Castro - this was in total violation of a Presidential order. That meant Kennedy was still covertly supporting assassinating government leaders or the CIA was operating covertly against presidential orders. If the latter being the case it shows how the CIA was "rouge" during that period.



Nice, but I know this fact since 20? jears. OK, I don't know this document before of course. But I well know of the assassination trials on Castro.
Perhaps we were better informed in germany by our press. Or your press didn't want to inform you before? Because no one in USA likes Castro?
I know, what the CIA was doing and perhaps is still doing. IRAN, CHILE, Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Argentina, Cuba, Egypt, Irak, Osama Bin laden, Afganistan, Laos, Namibia, Angola etc...
Not only during that period.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 6, 2007)

I said I agree with the moon landings...just seeing what others think. 

X files and oliver stone have a lot to answer for.lol


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

X files - LOL..

Oliver Stone - right direction on the wrong vehicle IMHO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Of course, I can compare both threads!!! BOTH ARE CONSPIRACY THREADS!!!
> Not more or less! Don't let us discuss in this thread, what is the truth of the JFK story. The difference in both threads is, that in this one, the majority believes, that they landed on the moon, in the other, they believe in "conspiracy".
> But you have to know, if the majority believes in something, it must not be the truth. "Conspiracy" is much more interesting, than "No conspiracy". Also for the press and TV!!!


And you're right, it's kind of funny that in most polls most people don't believe the Warren Commission...



T4.H said:


> I put a smilie behind it! For me, this was just a little joke (in this thread).


And i got it.... 



T4.H said:


> And remember this:
> 
> apples and oranges are both fruits!


 Another joke! 



T4.H said:


> Nice, but I know this fact since 20? jears. OK, I don't know this document before of course. But I well know of the assassination trials on Castro.
> Perhaps we were better informed in germany by our press. Or your press didn't want to inform you before? Because no one in USA likes Castro?
> I know, what the CIA was doing and perhaps is still doing. IRAN, CHILE, Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Argentina, Cuba, Egypt, Irak, Osama Bin laden, Afganistan, Laos, Namibia, Angola etc...
> Not only during that period.


The CIA has been very tempered since that period, almost castrated. This fact that you claim you know for 20 years just came out - the fact was it was late in the Kennedy Administration and was going on after he fired many in the CIA and ordered assassinations stopped, that's the significance of this...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Funny moon stuff


Redzero's Moonhoax - How Apollo moon landings really happened


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The CIA has been very tempered since that period, almost castrated. This fact that you claim you know for 20 years just came out - the fact was it was late in the Kennedy Administration and was going on after he fired many in the CIA and ordered assassinations stopped, that's the significance of this...



OK, perhaps I misunderstood, what you wanted to say.

I have another (same?) story for you.

You have had a "Bomber Harris" in the pacific region in WWII. I don't know his name. Later he was the commander of your strategic B52 bomber fleet.
Only the president (and vice president?) has the right to press the "Red Button". Kenedy has had to recognice, that this guy had also the codes. This guy meant something like "if the president is not carrageous enough, to decide for". Not only the CIA was out of control in this time.




FLYBOYJ said:


> The CIA has been very tempered since that period, almost castrated.



Do you realy belive this? 
Perhaps a little bit tempered!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

T4.H said:


> OK, perhaps I misunderstood, what you wanted to say.


No problem


T4.H said:


> I have another (same?) story for you.
> 
> You have had a "Bomber Harris" in the pacific region in WWII. I don't know his name. Later he was the commander of your strategic B52 bomber fleet.
> Only the president (and vice president?) has the right to press the "Red Button". Kenedy has had to recognice, that this guy had also the codes. This guy meant something like "if the president is not carrageous enough, to decide for". Not only the CIA was out of control in this time.


You're thinking of general LeMay and yes another one out of control.

Remember, many of these folks were former WW2 vets - very hardened and very set in their ways and many operating with their own agendas.



T4.H said:


> Do you realy belive this?
> Perhaps a little bit tempered!



I do to a point....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 6, 2007)

I believe that the moonlandings took place. Why would they want to make a hoax? What point would they want to make? What possibly would they like to gain with the hoax?


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2007)

Little wonder why Buzz Aldrin smacks 'Apolloscam' theorists in the face. They must be driving the poor man insane!


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jul 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I met Armstrong at a school function and it was really neat to hear everything from the great man himself.



I am so jealous.....he is one of my heros (did you get his autograph ??)
Last year I just missed Aldrin at RAF Fairford....(and yes...they did go to the Moon)


----------



## outremerknight (Jul 7, 2007)

Can I throw in my 'Tuppence' worth, please. There are certain facts about the moon landing that confuse me and so far I'm near the fence, on the side I believe them to be true, but... 
Also: I know for a fact that the CIA were actively looking at getting involved in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s. I also have other information regarding this situation but I doubt it will appear in any paperwork anywhere anytime.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

What does the CIA, Moon landings and Northern Ireland have to do with each other?


----------



## mkloby (Jul 7, 2007)

outremerknight said:


> Can I throw in my 'Tuppence' worth, please. There are certain facts about the moon landing that confuse me and so far I'm near the fence, on the side I believe them to be true, but...
> Also: I know for a fact that the CIA were actively looking at getting involved in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s. I also have other information regarding this situation but I doubt it will appear in any paperwork anywhere anytime.



I don't understand your point. Of course the CIA would be interested in the Provos - they had major arms smuggling operations based out of the US (particularly from the Camp Lejeune area; go USMC), they were viewed as a destabilizing terrorist organization, and were involved in other global arms procurement schemes (Libya comes to mind).

And you're surprised that the CIA would be interested in getting involved in Northern Ireland?



FLYBOYJ said:


> What does the CIA, Moon landings and Northern Ireland have to do with each other?



That sounds like the beginning of a fine joke


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2007)

outremerknight said:


> Also: I know for a fact that the CIA were actively looking at getting involved in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s. I also have other information regarding this situation but I doubt it will appear in any paperwork anywhere anytime.



Was the IRA landing on the moon?

No, then what does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## mkloby (Jul 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Was the IRA landing on the moon?
> 
> No, then what does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 7, 2007)

I think Titanic wa a hoax inspired by the Khymer Rouge.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 8, 2007)

Did you know that with all the money spent on the war in Iraq the USA could have gone back to the moon?

When it was discussed, the a new moon shot was far too costly but they seem to find the cash for Iraq.

The Apollo programme cost no more than a years worth of war in Vietnam.

The Astronauts rarely sign autos coz Aldrins auto can go for $400 And so you have to pay him to sign! Aldrin also claimed two migs in Korea. And seemingly the worlds largest chip on his shoulder. Alan Bean is my favourite moon walker. He seems to be a most likeable and down to earth person.

When I went to Florida and actully saw a Saturn V it was amazing. It is chuffing ginormous!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 8, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Did you know that with all the money spent on the war in Iraq the USA could have gone back to the moon?
> 
> When it was discussed, the a new moon shot was far too costly but they seem to find the cash for Iraq.
> 
> The Apollo programme cost no more than a years worth of war in Vietnam.



Maybe because the Moon is not going to support terrorists....

If it is that important to you that someone goes to the moon now then please ask your own country to fund the money and send one of there own astronauts to the moon.



The Basket said:


> The Astronauts rarely sign autos coz Aldrins auto can go for $400 And so you have to pay him to sign! Aldrin also claimed two migs in Korea. And seemingly the worlds largest chip on his shoulder. Alan Bean is my favourite moon walker. He seems to be a most likeable and down to earth person.



What are you talking about? They dont have problems signing autographs. Where did you make this us at?

Whenever they are out and about and someone asks for an autograph they sign it without a problem.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 8, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Maybe because the Moon is not going to support terrorists....



Neither did Saddam. He may have been a nasty piece of work but he wasnt a terrorist.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Astronauts rarely sign autos coz Aldrins auto can go for $400 And so you have to pay him to sign! Aldrin also claimed two migs in Korea. And seemingly the worlds largest chip on his shoulder.


I've met Aldrin twice. Once when I was 17 and again when I was in my 30s. Both times he gave out autographs and seemed very likable...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Neither did Saddam. He may have been a nasty piece of work but he wasnt a terrorist.


No he wasn't but he needed to go...


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 8, 2007)

He was probably more a terrorist to his own people....


----------



## mkloby (Jul 8, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Neither did Saddam. He may have been a nasty piece of work but he wasnt a terrorist.



Are you nuts - Saddam Hussein's whole regime was a textbook definition of terrorism. My goodness - where do you come up with this garbage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> He was probably more a terrorist to his own people....



My point...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've met Aldrin twice. Once when I was 17 and again when I was in my 30s. Both times he gave out autographs and seemed very likable...



Exactly I have never met an astronaut who did not give out autographs.


----------



## mkloby (Jul 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly I have never met an astronaut who did not give out autographs.



It probably said that in a newspaper. It's in the paper, so it has got to be true, no?


----------



## peterbruce2002 (Jul 9, 2007)

well i love astronomy. and even though i love a good conspiracy and believe half the stuff about the phony moon landing... i dont care. really. i wasnt alive back then, and to me, half the fun of looking into space is the dreaming of being there someday myself. its highly impossible, but its the complete awe of the nights sky that has the biggest draw for me. amazing.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 9, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Are you nuts - Saddam Hussein's whole regime was a textbook definition of terrorism. My goodness - where do you come up with this garbage.



Wrong. He was a textbook tyrant and dictator. Did you know that two young boys were killed in my town by PIRA? By a bomb in a rubbish bin? And you ask me if I know terrorism? That when I joined the RAF that I was told at any time I was a target for PIRA? And you ask me what terrorism is? What the definition of terrorism is? When I go home and see the plaque where the boys died...that is the textbook definition of terrorism...I don't have to go to Iraq to find it....to be told how to look under your car for a IED...? Yeah...is that garbage?


----------



## mkloby (Jul 9, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Wrong. He was a textbook tyrant and dictator. Did you know that two young boys were killed in my town by PIRA? By a bomb in a rubbish bin? And you ask me if I know terrorism? That when I joined the RAF that I was told at any time I was a target for PIRA? And you ask me what terrorism is? What the definition of terrorism is? When I go home and see the plaque where the boys died...that is the textbook definition of terrorism...I don't have to go to Iraq to find it....to be told how to look under your car for a IED...? Yeah...is that garbage?



Apparently, you believe that a leader cannot wage terror on their own people. That's sad that you think that.

That's a terrible story. That would also be categorized as terrorism, as our government sees fit, and likely almost any other government out there.

Here is just one definition of terrorism...
This is taken from the US State Dept:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. 

It is also commonly referred to by means that utilize mass fear in order to attain goals, which are often political or religious in nature.

Now - since Saddam was part of a minority group in Iraq that held power through such means, I do not see how you can logically conclude he was not a terrorist. International terrorism is only a single type of terror. A leader can fully engage in acts of terror towards his own people - which again - Saddam Hussein did.

That said - all this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 9, 2007)

terror/ist n. one who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community; hence or cogn.~
Oxford Dictionary.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 10, 2007)

Terrorist or terrorism is the latest buzz word used by whoever wants to use it. Was Hitler or Stalin ever called terrorist?

Was he a terrorist when he invaded Iran? When he was doing what the Arab states and the west wanted him too? If he didn't invade Kuwait, He would still be in power Killing as he pleases. 

Remember that PIRA was also called freedom fighters by their supporters. Its a point of view of whose side your on. I like Semantics and the meaning of words. We could go through every war in history and think whether this or that was a terrorist act. At some point we have to agree to disagree on this point.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2007)

The Basket said:


> I don't have to go to Iraq to find it....to be told how to look under your car for a IED...? Yeah...is that garbage?



That puts you on a thin line. As an Iraq veteran I will not tolerate anyone who will slander what the soldiers in Iraq are doing and especially those that have fallen in Iraq even if they were killed by an IED....or garbage.....

If you wish to discuss the Iraq war then do it in the many threads about the Iraq War. You got that?

Now I suggest this thread gets back on topic....


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jul 12, 2007)

In James R Hansen's book First Man...The Life of Neil Armstrong ....there's quite a lot about fame and autographs.He states that Armstrong never gives them (pages 624 625) and its estimated 90% of autographs are fake.
Another excellent book about the Apollo astronauts is Moondust by Andrew Smith where he tries to interview the surviving (at that time-2005) astronauts.
If you do have Armstrongs autograph...its worth a fortune ......if you can prove authenticity.


----------



## mkloby (Jul 12, 2007)

CRASHGATE3 said:


> If you do have Armstrongs autograph...its worth a fortune ......if you can prove authenticity.



Only if someone will pay you a fortune for it.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jul 12, 2007)

Good site
collectSPACE - space history, space memorabilia, space artifacts, and space collectibles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2007)

CRASHGATE3 said:


> In James R Hansen's book First Man...The Life of Neil Armstrong ....there's quite a lot about fame and autographs.He states that Armstrong never gives them (pages 624 625) and its estimated 90% of autographs are fake.
> Another excellent book about the Apollo astronauts is Moondust by Andrew Smith where he tries to interview the surviving (at that time-2005) astronauts.
> If you do have Armstrongs autograph...its worth a fortune ......if you can prove authenticity.



He was handing them out at our school....

But then again that was back in the 1980s

I did a bit of research and it turns out that he apparantly does not sign autographs any more since 1994.

This is from Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt as well.

"Since 1994, he has refused any requests for autographs, after he found that his signed items were selling for large amounts of money and that many forgeries are in circulation. Often items reach prices of US$1,000 on auction sites like eBay. Signed photographs of the Apollo 11 crew can sell for $5,000. Any requests sent to him receive a form letter in reply saying that he has stopped signing. Although his no-autograph policy is well-known, author Andrew Smith watched people at the 2002 Reno Air Races still try to get signatures, even saying, "If you shove something close enough in front of his face, he'll sign."[54] Along with autographs, he has stopped sending out congratulatory letters to new Eagle Scouts. The reason is that he thinks these letters should come from people who know the scout personally"

Neil Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## The Basket (Jul 13, 2007)

Andrew Smith's book Moondust is an excellent read of what the moonrace means today.

And what happaned to all the Apollo crew.

He speaks to all the survivors or at least tries too!


----------



## outremerknight (Jul 14, 2007)

Apologies for my earlier input. I was 'hopping' through the topics got on to this one and missed that it was really dedicated to the moon landings only. 
Did you know that Sir Patrick Moore, whilst in tenure at Armagh Observatory, drew up the plans for the first moon landing and also advised NASA on the suitability of their choice of landing spot and also advised on what sort of surface the astronauts could expext there?


----------



## trackend (Jul 14, 2007)

I find it all amusing that anyone could even contemplate accusing the Moon landings as a fake. it was all just a money spinning exercise to sell books ect
I remember watching it on TV it was brilliant, probably the most exciting live TV coverage of all time next to the 13 re-entry wait.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 14, 2007)

Im sorry, but anyone who doubts the authenticity of the moon landings is a fu*kin moron who needs to stop humping on his pet llama, cause those fur burns are obviously producing some sort of amino acid that renders the cognizant reality portion of ur brain non-functional...

Fu*kin retards....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)




----------



## Gnomey (Jul 14, 2007)

Les has pretty much summed it up perfectly (as he so often does). The only reason why people say it didn't occur is to sell books. Every major event in world history have different views (with all the morons holding the views that are just f*cking stupid --> contrails etc).


----------



## mkloby (Jul 14, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Im sorry, but anyone who doubts the authenticity of the moon landings is a fu*kin moron who needs to stop humping on his pet llama, cause those fur burns are obviously producing some sort of amino acid that renders the cognizant reality portion of ur brain non-functional...
> 
> Fu*kin retards....



Damn man - LMFAO


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 14, 2007)

Like that big word cognizant??? U hardly ever get the chance to use that word, especially among u unedumacated meatballs...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Like that big word cognizant??? U hardly ever get the chance to use that word, especially among u unedumacated meatballs...



Yo watch that - I graduated from P.S. 46!


----------



## mkloby (Jul 14, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Like that big word cognizant??? U hardly ever get the chance to use that word, especially among u unedumacated meatballs...



Haha - Nobody really uses that word except in papers - attempting to make up for complete lack of quality material with fancy words.


----------



## DOUGRD (Jul 15, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Like that big word cognizant??? U hardly ever get the chance to use that word, especially among u unedumacated meatballs...



If you refer to the 5th grade as.."My senior year"


----------



## trackend (Jul 15, 2007)

I confess I am one of those Unedumacated meatballs.
I had to look cognizant up in the dictionary,
I always fort it was sumfing to do wiv gearboxes duh


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 15, 2007)

loby said:


> Haha - Nobody really uses that word except in papers - attempting to make up for complete lack of quality material with fancy words.


Dude, there is no way u are insulting the quality of my material as it is all top shelf stuff that makes Jay Lenos' writers jealous...


----------



## mkloby (Jul 15, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Dude, there is no way u are insulting the quality of my material as it is all top shelf stuff that makes Jay Lenos' writers jealous...



I can't disagree with you there. Sometimes I click around the New Posts section and look for your posts, as it usually doesn't take more than a click or two to find one of your artful dissertations embarressing another member.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 15, 2007)

I wouldnt go so far as to say embarrassing members, but maybe more like enlightening them...

And for me, the New Post section is where I usually reside.... It makes it easier for me to navigate the site and see what all u clammers are up to...


----------

