I Forgot I Have A French Fourragere

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The French lost to the most effective military force in the world. And while the germans defeated the French, they also mopped the floor with the british forces. They took on both the brits and the french and they defeated them.

They occupied Paris but never London. You don't mess with the RAF.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The French lost to the most effective military force in the world. And while the germans defeated the French, they also mopped the floor with the british forces. They took on both the brits and the french and they defeated them.

They occupied Paris but never London. You don't mess with the RAF.

If you look at the map, you will notice that there is a largish body of water known as "The Channel" between mainland Europe and GB. That is the reason why Germans never marched to London. Unfortunately Paris didn't have that kind of procetion

 

[kleinesarschloch]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
French Fourragere
Hmm... Should I deface it before I send it back?

you should definately return the award, since you personally did NOTHING to earn it. and while you're at it, go ahead and deface it. you will let the french know that the american stereotype is alive and well.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look who's talking, you act is if the Finn's defeated Hitler by yourselves, keep deluding yourself that you wouldn't be under German rule without US intervention.

Incorrect. Allow me to give you a brief lesson in history:

In 1939 Soviet Union attacked Finland (without declaration of war I might add). We fought against them for 105 days. We only got symbolic help from the west (some volunteers from Sweden was the best help that did materialise). Finland lost about 30.000 - 40.000 men, Soviets lost about 300.000. Had USA of the time lost as many men as Finland did, it would have meant losses of over 2 million men in a war that lasted for 105 days. In the end, we were forced to make peace and surrender land to the Soviets. That happened in marc 1941.

Between that date and start of Operation Barbadossa SU continued their hostile attitude towards Finland. Norway was occupied by Germany, so we had no access to the west. So Germany was the only nation that could protect us against SU. So we seeked closer ties with them, and we re-armed our military. We allowed Germany to send troops to Northern Finland (their aim was to cut the Murmansk railroad). When Barbadossa began, SU attacked Finland (again, without declaration of war), and we counterattacked. We took the land that we lost in the Winter War and drove eastwards. We weren't part of the Axis, we just had a common enemy. But Finland and finnish troops were very highly respected by the Wehrmacht

In 1944 SU launched a massive attack against Finland (at the same time D-Day was taking place). They attacked with 40 infrantry-divisions and about 1500 tanks. Plan was to defeat the finnish army and occupy the entire country. They pushed us back, but that attack was stopped fain and square in the battle of Tali-Ihantala (largest battle ever to take place in Scandinavia). SU needed those troops elsewhere, so things got more quiet again. But by that time the defeat of Germany was certain, and Finland wanted out of the war. So we made peace with SU. Part of the peace-agreement was that we must drive the Germans out of Norhtern Finland, and that we did. While the Germans retreated, they used scorched-earth tactic, destroying northern Finland

I never said that "Finland defeated Hitler". The war in Northern Finland was minor in the grand scheme of things. But we saved the nation from Soviet hordes with no help from USA. And no, we didn't get any Marshall Aid either. We rebuilt the nation (and paid huge war-restitutions to SU) all by ourself.

Now, do tell me: When exactly were we under German rule? How exactly did "USA save Finland from Hitler!". For you to think something like that simply shows how ignorant you are when it comes to this matter.

BTW the Germans were not the most effective military in the world, the US was, notice who succesfully fought on two fronts in WW2.

Notice how succesfull Germany was fighting a war against USA, UK, Soviet Union, Canada and several smaller countries. It took the combined strenght of the most powerful nations in the world to defeat them.

How do you get off suggesting his reasoning is wrong? It is his opinion. Nobody else seems to have ANY problem with him doing what he wants with his medal, why do YOU? Talk about insecure, lol.

Most people here have no problems in what he does because they are jingoists. Of course he can do whatever he wants with that medal, I just think that defacing and/or returning it is rather immature.

My mind is deranged? At least i'm not so consumed with envy towards another country I can't stand to hear or say anything good about them, but at the same time I can't ignore them either.

Where did you get that "envy" from? Or are you again making up "facts" in your head? There are alot of good things in USA, but none of them are really relevant to the discussion at hand.

As far as the French, they attack our efforts based on moral reasoning and lack of support (more countires supporting now than in 1991)

Alot of the countries who support this war are such superpowers as Mongolia, Angola, Uganda, Solomon Islands, Ethiopia and Albania. Just because there are alot countries involved (40 actually, so they are still a minority), many of them are downright insignificant.

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
I had forgotten about it until some mentioned depleted uranium ammo and I opened an old box.

:Q :Q

I don't know.. somehow that just didn't read right to me..

 

[figgypower]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

If you look at the map, you will notice that there is a largish body of water known as "The Channel" between mainland Europe and GB. That is the reason why Germans never marched to London. Unfortunately Paris didn't have that kind of procetion

The Atlantic was a "largish" body of water that most probably prevented the Germans from trying to the storm the U.S. The Channel, on the other hand is rather small, but admittedly it can be difficult to cross in bad weather. It has been repeatedly noted for being narrow and "narrowness" (as opposed to "largeness") was one of the problems of the Allied invasion of Normandy. Hitler decided against an invasion through the Channel, why... I dunno. He preferred bombing London to oblivion. Also the Royal Navy was no weakling. There was a program on the History Channel sometime back about this... or actually LOTS of programs since it's basically the WWII channel. But, hey that kind of stuff interests me, so I'm fine with it.

 

[figgypower]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

BTW the Germans were not the most effective military in the world, the US was, notice who succesfully fought on two fronts in WW2.

Notice how succesfull Germany was fighting a war against USA, UK, Soviet Union, Canada and several smaller countries. It took the combined strenght of the most powerful nations in the world to defeat them.

Effective, nah... we've discussed this plenty of times in high school history classes and college, as well. Again, this really depends on your defintion of "effective". They were highly mobile, innovative, and in some regards efficient. The Nazis were known to dream up some amazing stuff, but (fortunately) some of their execution was rather poor; i.e. V-2 rockets. They get lucky with some other methods, i.e. Blitzkrieg. Essentially, a lot of their visions had termendous potential, but they either were not executed effectively (I mean, hey, horribly treated concentration camp slaves aren't that great for industrial level activity) or not executed quickly enough (hey, jets are nice, except when your pilots die and your planes blow up due to complicated technology). They also lacked the foresight for less "dreamy" innovations, such as radar; it's scary if you send your birds of war over the channel to attack, but too bad I already can see your surprise attack.

A more clear sign of Nazi military ineptitude was in attacking the Soviet Union; it didn't even have any clear goals. Many modern historians I've met will even go as far to say the Russians won WWII; for the Nazis the invasion of the Soviet Union was pure disaster. Also, keep in mind that as the war progressed Hitler and his generals became more disagreeable. The result was that the German war machine was commanded by men who had no confidence in their capabilities. Hitler, who ultimately sent of the orders, was not a capable strategist, either. Keep in mind that he had only been a corporal in WWI. One last thing about effectiveness: the Nazi war machine spread itself out far too thin - an incredibly stupid thing to do.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Yes. It disgusts me to look at it. I don't want it contaminating my US awards.

Pretty sad..

 

[TallBill]

damnit... i was just going out to buy a zodiac inflatable boat too

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: figgypower
Essentially, a lot of their visions had termendous potential, but they either were not executed effectively (I mean, hey, horribly treated concentration camp slaves aren't that great for industrial level activity) or not executed quickly enough (hey, jets are nice, except when your pilots die and your planes blow up due to complicated technology).

And Blitzkrieg?

They also lacked the foresight for less "dreamy" innovations, such as radar; it's scary if you send your birds of war over the channel to attack, but too bad I already can see your surprise attack.

They had radars too, they had effective figher-jets, they had awesome tanks, they had excellent tactics. I fail to see your point

A more clear sign of Nazi military ineptitude was in attacking the Soviet Union; it didn't even have any clear goals.

Barbadossa had goals. The goal was to capture Leningrad and Moscow while third attack in the south tied up Soviet forces and captured resource-rich areas. But the main attack was towards Leningrad and Moscow. After Moscow was captured, last organised forces of SU would have been annihilated east of Moscow. That was the plan. Unfortunately for Germans, Hitler started meddling with that plan in the middle of the attack, diverting large forces from the Moscow-attack to south, which caused the drive to Moscow to stop. Once they continued with the attack, it was too late.

Many modern historians I've met will even go as far to say the Russians won WWII

I consider that to be a fact. They fought alot longer than western allies did (ground-war that is), and even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: figgypower
The Atlantic was a "largish" body of water that most probably prevented the Germans from trying to the storm the U.S. The Channel, on the other hand is rather small, but admittedly it can be difficult to cross in bad weather.

Of course it can be crossed, as was demonstrated by the Allied. But it took alot of preparation, and the Germans didn't have the means to get across. They didn't have suitable landing-crafts, so the plan was to transport the troops in flotillas that were being pulled by tug-boats. That was risky at best, and to have even a remote change of getting across, they needed air-superiority (which they almost achieved. Brits were saved by an accident. A german bomber accidentally bombed civilian-target in London. Churchill demanded a revenge bombing of Berlin. Hitler got pissed, and demanded a revenge-bombing of London....)

It has been repeatedly noted for being narrow and "narrowness" (as opposed to "largeness") was one of the problems of the Allied invasion of Normandy. Hitler decided against an invasion through the Channel, why... I dunno.

Because Luftwaffe didn't achieve air-superiority and because Germans lacked landing-crafts and other vessels required to cross the channel

He preferred bombing London to oblivion.

That happened by accident in fact, see above.

Also the Royal Navy was no weakling.

Royal navy was superior to German Kriegesmarine, but to my knowledge, their ships were spread out quite alot around the world. Kriegesmarine and Luftwaffe (assuming air-superiority) could have sealed off the channel for the Wehrmacht to get across. But since Wehrmacht and the Kriegesmarine lacked the means (apart from the flotillas and tug-boats) to transport forces across the channel, this is all purely academic.

Without the channel. UK would have been overrun. After Dunkerque, the british army couldn't have defended for long against the Wehrmacht. But they were saved because the Germans couldn't get across the channel.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Many modern historians I've met will even go as far to say the Russians won WWII

I consider that to be a fact. They fought alot longer than western allies did (ground-war that is), and even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets.

True, but Russia never had any significant action against the Japanese...

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
French Fourragere
Hmm... Should I deface it before I send it back?

you should definately return the award, since you personally did NOTHING to earn it. and while you're at it, go ahead and deface it. you will let the french know that the american stereotype is alive and well.

I'm going to go WAAAAAAAAAAY out on a limb here and say he did more for it that you did. Sure, its a unit citation, but its not like they are going to go and award every frigging Marine that went up Mt. Suribachi a Silver Star, either. You give a unit award when that unit, as a whole, did something to merit it. Unless you were in WWII and won at least a Bronze Star, or were in the armed services of any country and won ANYTHING "better" than what he did, I'm calling shenanigans.

 

[figgypower]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77


And Blitzkrieg?

They had radars too, they had effective figher-jets, they had awesome tanks, they had excellent tactics. I fail to see your point

Barbadossa had goals. The goal was to capture Leningrad and Moscow while third attack in the south tied up Soviet forces and captured resource-rich areas. But the main attack was towards Leningrad and Moscow. After Moscow was captured, last organised forces of SU would have been annihilated east of Moscow. That was the plan. Unfortunately for Germans, Hitler started meddling with that plan in the middle of the attack, diverting large forces from the Moscow-attack to south, which caused the drive to Moscow to stop. Once they continued with the attack, it was too late.

I consider that to be a fact. They fought alot longer than western allies did (ground-war that is), and even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets.

Blitzkrieg was nice, for them that is. I'm not aware they had radar until the very end of the war, and even then they weren't very well or extensively used. Now, the fighter-jets - you've got to be kidding me... those were simply p**s poor. The tanks - agreed. Despite whatever technical superiority they posed, they still lost! I think that's immense proof that their technology was either misused or not used to its full potential. Besides the technology, the Americans were simply able to crank out more stuff then stuff got blown up! Industrialization was the true key to the "modern" warfare of WWII. Their tactics are quite debateable as whether they were "excellent" or not; certainly, their defensive tactics became just another, stronger Maginot Line. Overwhelming force broke through it.

The Germans and the Russians - well I've gotten a lot of brainwashing through high school. College is clearing up the truth for me. The Nazi plans against Russia was lucky at first, but it has so many holes and so many things the Nazis did not anticipate or expect. It was a non-existent plan as far as I see it. We can argue this endlessly, but why?

Edit (03/29/03):
Some language and grammar.

 

[figgypower]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Of course it can be crossed, as was demonstrated by the Allied. But it took alot of preparation, and the Germans didn't have the means to get across. They didn't have suitable landing-crafts, so the plan was to transport the troops in flotillas that were being pulled by tug-boats. That was risky at best, and to have even a remote change of getting across, they needed air-superiority (which they almost achieved. Brits were saved by an accident. A german bomber accidentally bombed civilian-target in London. Churchill demanded a revenge bombing of Berlin. Hitler got pissed, and demanded a revenge-bombing of London....)

Because Luftwaffe didn't achieve air-superiority and because Germans lacked landing-crafts and other vessels required to cross the channel

That happened by accident in fact, see above.

Royal navy was superior to German Kriegesmarine, but to my knowledge, their ships were spread out quite alot around the world. Kriegesmarine and Luftwaffe (assuming air-superiority) could have sealed off the channel for the Wehrmacht to get across. But since Wehrmacht and the Kriegesmarine lacked the means (apart from the flotillas and tug-boats) to transport forces across the channel, this is all purely academic.

Without the channel. UK would have been overrun. After Dunkerque, the british army couldn't have defended for long against the Wehrmacht. But they were saved because the Germans couldn't get across the channel.

This is ludicrous! I know for a fact that the Nazis had a plan for crossing the Channel and attacking! Half-a**ed it may have been, but it could've been improved on. Yes, you're right the Kriegsmarine knew that even with air supermacy crossing the channel might be quite some trouble. Yet, they tried achieving air superiority. What eventually helped was that the distance between the two and the resolute of the RAF. However, the only reason they refused to invade was Hitler and his "brilliant" ideas of revenge bombing.

The UK wasn't overrun because Hiter was an idiot! I mean do you carry out a plan where you have a chance at invading or repeatedly bombing civilian targets? To me, it makes more sense to invade - there's a better chance of success. Hitler, and even his cronies, counted on the UK to make peace and step away from WWII. There wouldn't need be a "real" invasion of the Luftwaffe did enough damage to the RAF... but, fortunately, the UK had Winston Churchill. That man was stubborn - it ultimately helped strengthen British resolve. Hitler finally gave up the idea of an invasion and kept on hoping for the fall of the RAF. Why were invasion plans never improved with better mar machines? Finally, Hitler just pulled out and had his huge blunder at Russia.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: figgypower
Blitzkrieg was nice, for them that is. I'm not aware they had radar until the very end of the war, and even then they weren't very well or extensively used.

Sure they had radars. They also had night-figters that were equipped with radars.

Now, the fighter-jets - you've got to be kidding me... those were simply piss poor.

How so? ME-262 was an awesome plane. Altrough Hitler ruined it by demanding that it must a bomber as well.

Despite whatever technical superiority they posed, they still lost!

And the fact that they were outnumbered by a huge amount didn't matter at all? Fact is, they fought against Soviet Union, USA, Great Britain, Canada and several other countries.

I think that's immense proof that their technology was either misused or not used to its full potential.

While that may be, fact still is that they were outmanned.

The Germans and the Russians - well I've gotten a lot of brainwashing through high school. College is clearing up the truth for me. The Nazi plans against Russia was lucky at first, but it has so many holes and so many things the Nazis did not anticipate or expect. It was a non-existent plan as far as I see it. We can argue this endlessly, but why?

Like I said, they had a plan, but because of Hitlers meddling, it wasn't executed to the letter. Basically the plan was a concentrated attack against Moscow, with secondary attack against Leningrad. Southern front wasn't as important. But that concentrated attack got diluted when Hitler ordered the army group center (the one going towards Moscow) to turn south. Also, the start of the attack was delayed (because of Germans attack in the Balkans (and you can thank the Italians for that)). Had the attack started a month sooner, I think the outcome of the war would have been completely different.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: figgypower
This is ludicrous! I know for a fact that the Nazis had a plan for crossing the Channel and attacking!

Yes they did. The Operation Seelöwe (Sealion). I never claimed that they didn't have a plan. I have even seen maps of their plan

Half-a**ed it may have been, but it could've been improved on.

It could have been improved by building large number of landing-crafts and transport-ships. They didn't have the time or the resources, they had to make do what they had.

Yes, you're right the Kriegsmarine knew that even with air supermacy crossing the channel might be quite some trouble. Yet, they tried achieving air superiority. What eventually helped was that the distance between the two and the resolute of the RAF. However, the only reason they refused to invade was Hitler and his "brilliant" ideas of revenge bombing.

Like I said, Luftwaffe came REALLY cloe to defeating RAF. But then the bombing of London started and RAF got more breathing-room and they recovered.

The UK wasn't overrun because Hiter was an idiot!

The UK wasn't overrun because:

1. Germans had to somehow get across the Channel
2. To do that, they needed air-supremacy
3. Luftwaffe failed to achieve that.
4. The reason for that failure was the bombing of London

I mean do you carry out a plan where you have a chance at invading or repeatedly bombing civilian targets? To me, it makes more sense to invade - there's a better chance of success.

Of course, we know now that bombing the brits in to submission doesn't work (it didn't work for Germany either), but they didn't know that back then. Sure they could have tried to cross the channel with no air-supremacy. But it would have been a disaster. I think that Germans did think that "invasion would propably be more effective way to defeat Britain, but it would cost us alot more", so they chose the "cheaper" way to do it, but it failed.

Why were invasion plans never improved with better mar machines?

Because they were busy building U-boats, tanks etc. etc. they didn't have the resources to build landing-crafts and the like. Also, the Operation Barbadossa was getting closer and they had to prepare for that.

 

[figgypower]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Sure they had radars. They also had night-figters that were equipped with radars.

How so? ME-262 was an awesome plane. Altrough Hitler ruined it by demanding that it must a bomber as well.

Like I said, they had a plan, but because of Hitlers meddling, it wasn't executed to the letter. Basically the plan was a concentrated attack against Moscow, with secondary attack against Leningrad. Southern front wasn't as important. But that concentrated attack got diluted when Hitler ordered the army group center (the one going towards Moscow) to turn south. Also, the start of the attack was delayed (because of Germans attack in the Balkans (and you can thank the Italians for that)). Had the attack started a month sooner, I think the outcome of the war would have been completely different.

Alright, alright - they had a plan, I was wrong. I still say it was bad. As for their jet technology, as an engineer-to-be, they had nice little "prototypes", but nothing impressive. I don't think their technical innovation always matched up with industrial production and a lot of their technology would have required years of refinement to be of any good. The U.S. Air Force basically stole all their visions and made it a reality. Essentially, it doesn't matter if you can produce a small scale nuclear reaction, but it certainly matters if you produce a nuclear bomb. Likewise, their complicated ME-262, even if Hitler didn't mess with its greatness, had plenty of industrial complications and couldn't be scaled for mass production. The actual engine of the ME-262 (pre and after bomber transformation) was hideously unreliable.

I admit, when the ME-262 DID work - it was amazing, 30 jets could take on 100 allied fithers, no problem. Unfortunately, for the Nazins, that very rarely happened. As like a lot of other Nazi innovation, it was gee-whiz and not utilitarian.

Oh and just as I thought... Nazi radar wasn't much. I quote, "The Germans never realized the importance of radar to the allies. At the end of the war the Nazi radar was not much improved over the sets they captured from the British after the fall of France in June 1940. They had not figured the tactical use of it other than on battleships." If you really want I can find more sources on the ineffectiveness of Nazi technology; as an eingineer-to-be, the gee-whiz factor of Nazi technology is always touted, until someone can carefully point out that it was not utilitarian at all. All exlcuding their tanks, those I respect as good engineering (for the time being, anyway).

As for being outnumbered, hey they asked for it when they declared war on England, the United States, and Russia. Then decided to carry these out simultaneously. I mean, what exactly was Hitler hoping for declaring war on some of the most powerful countries? A military miracle? Those don't happen.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
French Fourragere
Hmm... Should I deface it before I send it back?

I think you should keep it. I have one too, and believe in preserving the memory of our fathers who shed blood to free Europe.

 

[figgypower]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Yes they did. The Operation Seelöwe (Sealion). I never claimed that they didn't have a plan. I have even seen maps of their plan

It could have been improved by building large number of landing-crafts and transport-ships. They didn't have the time or the resources, they had to make do what they had.

Like I said, Luftwaffe came REALLY cloe to defeating RAF. But then the bombing of London started and RAF got more breathing-room and they recovered.

The UK wasn't overrun because:

1. Germans had to somehow get across the Channel
2. To do that, they needed air-supremacy
3. Luftwaffe failed to achieve that.
4. The reason for that failure was the bombing of London

Of course, we know now that bombing the brits in to submission doesn't work (it didn't work for Germany either), but they didn't know that back then. Sure they could have tried to cross the channel with no air-supremacy. But it would have been a disaster. I think that Germans did think that "invasion would propably be more effective way to defeat Britain, but it would cost us alot more", so they chose the "cheaper" way to do it, but it failed.

Because they were busy building U-boats, tanks etc. etc. they didn't have the resources to build landing-crafts and the like. Also, the Operation Barbadossa was getting closer and they had to prepare for that.

And the bombing of London happened, because... Hitler took the thing way too personally. It looks like Germany didn't have the industrial might to carry out this war, and furthermore, it was either a distastrous muck with the Russians or a disastrous invasion against Britian. Ah... choices, choices.

To get more on-topic... I think the guy should be able to do as he please. Ultimately, it's his award and he may express himself as he pleases. He has that right so long as he isn't injuring anyone else. That right includes his expression of dissent for French anti-war stance, whether that be wrong, right or immature. It's his personal decision. Flag waving "jingoist" he may be, but until he decides to kill the French - he has freedom of speech. Note that it's not even a threat, which I would not consider free speech. It's just an over-the-top way of saing "France, you suck," (that's not necessarily my opinion). Thus, in this particluar instance and form, I consider it a natural and unalieanable right; of course, truth be told it may just be an American thing.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Yes. It disgusts me to look at it. I don't want it contaminating my US awards.

Is it just me or is this place full of immature, flag-waving jingoists? "waaah! France doesn't jump when US tells it to jump! Therefore France sucks!"

It has been established that France has economic ties with Iraq that are very deep. France was against Gulf1 until the day before the invasion.

They helped Saddam build a nuclear power plant and violate UN sanctions with their trade policies towards Iraq.

We don't call the Frogs for nothing!

Correct again, Tom:

Blair confident of French support

• As Tony Blair prepares to attend tomorrow's Anglo-French summit, Downing Street believes Mr Chirac will repeat the tactics of his arch adversary, François Mitterrand, who supported the 1991 Gulf war at the last moment.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
French Fourragere
Hmm... Should I deface it before I send it back?

I think you should keep it. I have one too, and believe in preserving the memory of our fathers who shed blood to free Europe.

Was it awarded to you or your father?

 

[tec699]

I'm sorry.. I flew off the handle, because I just found out that my older brother maybe deployed to Iraq in the next couple weeks. My mom is seriously worried, because my father was in the Korean war and he knows first hand that war is ugly.

I apologize... If you want to wend it back then do it.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: tec699
Why are you telling us? If you don't want to keep it then send it back. Do you really think that I give a f***? Are you looking for support? Send it f**kin back!

jesus... (WHO CARES!)

Or maybe he is just looking for ideas. Or to start a discussion. Or to inform people of his decision. At least it isnt a nef thread, and I'd say it has started a discussion, at the very least, which is what the forums are all about

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: tec699
Why are you telling us? If you don't want to keep it then send it back. Do you really think that I give a f***? Are you looking for support? Send it f**kin back!

jesus... (WHO CARES!)

I care. If you don't why are you even in his thread?