Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/4/2002 9:31:17 PM EDT
Retail List Price: $27.96 Amazon pre-order Price: $20.97
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 9:40:01 PM EDT
Already got the Chinese DVD for $10.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 10:58:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Minman72: Already got the Chinese DVD for $10.
View Quote
Is it in English? Subtitled? Where to buy? Link dammit, link.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 11:08:32 PM EDT
[B]$10?[/B] Ah-ha-ha-ha... man it's great to know people who know people in Shanghai. [:D] I will still be purchasing the real version though - no extras on my current copy, and the transfer is pretty fuzzy.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 2:22:57 AM EDT
Are the specs known already, what kind of track will on there DD5.1 or DTS. The region 2 release is set around July 8th and will have the DD5.1 track. If the Region 1 version has a DTS track, the choice is clear. Kuiper
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 3:04:44 AM EDT
If you're into collecting DVDs for special features please note that the June release of Black Hawk Down will be a basic "movie only" version with few extras. Special editions will come later. This came from [url]www.thedigitalbits.com[/url] [i](LATE UPDATE - 4/3/02 - 11 AM PST) We've gotten details on Columbia TriStar's Black Hawk Down DVD (street date 6/11). The initial release will be basically a movie-only edition, including anamorphic widescreen video, Dolby Digital 5.1 audio, an On the Set featurette, theatrical trailers and filmographies (SRP $27.96). Fans of the film may want to hold off however, as a more elaborate special edition version of the film on DVD is already in the works for late in the year or early next year. You'll get audio commentaries and lots more if you're patient. Just FYI.[/i]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 3:57:09 AM EDT
I will buy both... [:D]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:28:04 AM EDT
I got all excited, but now it will be a movie-only? Oh well, I do the same as tylerdurden: buy both! [;)]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:10:10 AM EDT
I can't stand DVD mulitple release crap. First you buy the movie. Then comes the special edition version with cut scenes etc. Then comes a Criterion verstion etc. Arrrg. now you are stuck with the original and you have to sell it somehow. What a PITA.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:18:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Minman72: Already got the Chinese DVD for $10.
View Quote
Is it really a DVD? Or is it a Video CD?
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:02:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By Minman72: Already got the Chinese DVD for $10.
View Quote
Is it in English? Subtitled? Where to buy? Link dammit, link.
View Quote
I got it in chinatown for $10, only because I had to have it. (You wouldn't believe the selection down there!) Its in English, with good sound and video but the box is in English and Chinese, its kinda amusing! I'll be buying the special ed when it comes out, but for now, I was sick of Platoon, FMJ, Hamburger Hill and Saving Private Ryan! GET SOME GET SOME!!! NO, I WILL NOT BUY THEM FOR ANYONE! ASKING WILL GET ME IN TROUBLE AGAIN!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:12:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 10:13:32 AM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
Way to go MINMAN!!! First you dispense incorrect legal opinions about the liability of airlines for Sept 11, now you admit to knowing violation of copyright and other laws. That expensive legal education is really paying off. You have both the lack of understanding of the law and moral flexibility to fit right in and shore up bad public perceptions of lawyers. ATTABOY!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:24:34 AM EDT
Out of curiosity, is your Chinatown copy of BHD on a single disk?
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:14:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: First you dispense incorrect legal opinions about the liability of airlines for Sept 11, now you admit to knowing violation of copyright and other laws.
View Quote
Dude, really...who cares? Is he costing the studios a cent of his money? No. He already said he intended to buy the DVD when it came out. So why bust his chops? Just let it go.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:25:34 AM EDT
Rikwiter- I disagree. If he wants to see it again, now, without breaking the law, he has to buy a ticket, which results in revenue to the studio. Instead, he buys a pirated copy, which both costs the studio money as above AND puts money into the hands of the guy who is ripping off the intellectual property of everyone who worked on the film. Would I turn him in? No. I will bust his chops, though.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:08:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Rikwiter- I disagree. If he wants to see it again, now, without breaking the law, he has to buy a ticket, which results in revenue to the studio. Instead, he buys a pirated copy, which both costs the studio money as above AND puts money into the hands of the guy who is ripping off the intellectual property of everyone who worked on the film. Would I turn him in? No. I will bust his chops, though.
View Quote
Typical Kalifornian
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:20:36 PM EDT
Hi 1GUNRUNNER. Yeah, I'm typical, all right.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:23:37 PM EDT
BHD on DVD? Phffttt.... Check this out:
Artisan's got Jack Rambo on DVD with a trio of re-releases in anamorphic widescreen and DTS audio — First Blood: Special Edition will include a commentary with director Ted Kotcheff, a featurette, and stills; Rambo: First Blood 2: Special Edition will sport a yack-track from director George Cosmatos and a featurette; and Rambo 3: Special Edition will have a commentary by director Peter MacDonald and a look at the location shoot in Afghanistan. A Rambo Trilogy box-set will also be available with a fourth disc that includes documentaries and featurettes (SRP $44.94). This time we get to win — on May 21.
View Quote
[(:)] from [url=http://www.dvdjournal.com/index.html]DVD Journal[/url] I don't think I've sat through an entire Rambo movie. I don't think I've missed much either.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:32:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Rikwiter- I disagree. If he wants to see it again, now, without breaking the law, he has to buy a ticket, which results in revenue to the studio. [/B] However if he would not have gone to see the movie again, he is still costing them nothing. Me, I saw it three times and I don't plan on seeing it again. I will buy the DVD when it comes out. [B] Instead, he buys a pirated copy, which both costs the studio money [/B] I disagree. It cost them nothing.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:42:52 PM EDT
Whether it costs them a penny or not, (and I maintain it does), it is ILLEGAL, which was my origional point. Your comments go to whether or not it SHOULD be illegal. But it IS illegal. The biggest and most vocal opponents to copyright and other intellectual property law are not free speech advocates, they either want to pay less for it or sell such protected material without pating license fees. Minman, being a law student, knows it is illegal. I pointed out the irony and pulled his chain about it. Your defense of him is chivalrous, however.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:48:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Dude, really...who cares? Is he costing the studios a cent of his money? No. He already said he intended to buy the DVD when it came out. So why bust his chops? Just let it go.
View Quote
I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with Rik! [:D]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:54:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Rikwiter- I disagree. If he wants to see it again, now, without breaking the law, he has to buy a ticket, which results in revenue to the studio. Instead, he buys a pirated copy, which both costs the studio money as above AND puts money into the hands of the guy who is ripping off the intellectual property of everyone who worked on the film. Would I turn him in? No. I will bust his chops, though.
View Quote
You are so gay.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:57:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 2:02:01 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
PhiladelphiaGunman- What's YOUR point? Wanna bend over? What part of Philly? I used to live on Broad in South Philly.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 2:07:32 PM EDT
but for now, I was sick of Platoon, FMJ, Hamburger Hill and Saving Private Ryan!
View Quote
Okay, what about these: (1) Flight of the Intruder (2) Dogs of War (3) The Boys in Company C (4) Patton (5) Dr. Strangelove Just to mention a few
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 3:34:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Minman, being a law student, knows it is illegal. I pointed out the irony and pulled his chain about it.
View Quote
Okay, sorry, I didn't realize it was just a chain-yanking expedition.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 3:40:12 PM EDT
Yup, all in good fun.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:17:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Minman, being a law student, knows it is illegal. I pointed out the irony and pulled his chain about it.
View Quote
Okay, sorry, I didn't realize it was just a chain-yanking expedition.
View Quote
Considering I have no clue who citadel is, I took his comments as him being serious. I also fail to see how there is any irony in it. If I were part of an intellectual property enforcement firm and I went out and bought this, then maybe it'd be ironic. Being a law school student, I also have a pretty good understanding that only the copyright infringers (read - COPIERS) are prosecuted. When was the last time you saw any vender get busted for selling an illegal movie or DVD? Never. They go after the big guys, not people like me. Finally, about your comment about the airline industry...what in hell are you talking about? Dig up the post and refresh my memory o great one. Those posts came straight from class notes and lectures given right after 9/11 on the airline's liability. But thats ok, because you're a citadel grad, your opinions weigh in heavier than mine and my professors, right? [rolleyes] I'd be happy to [s]squash[/s] DISCUSS your theories on liability about that old thread off the board if you like though. [spank] One last thing to mention...my girlfriend is a SAG actress and sees movies for free and gets me all of the tickets I can handle. If I wanted to see BHD again, I'd go to the theatre with all of my buddies....FREE. I cost the industry NADA, I did make some nice lady on Canal St. a couple bucks though. Email me privately if you'd like to say hello, as far as I know this is the first time we've chatted and I really don't know who you are. Oh yeah, but I'm just yankin your chain!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:53:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 10:07:12 PM EDT by toaster]
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Typical Kalifornian
View Quote
Sheddup beeyotch![:D] I'm gonna buy two copies when it comes out. Never hurts to have a backup!!
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 7:11:26 PM EDT
Actually, I was Dead serious, Minman. At least you have a nose for that. AFTER I graduated from the Citadel, I went to law school, too, genius. But unlike YOU, I graduated already. Then I went to work as an attorney in private practice. I've been an attorney for 11 years, longer than most of your professors practiced in the private sector. I have tried several jury trials, including Federal trials, lots of bench trials, and a ton of arbitrations. I am legally and ethically obligated to keep up on legal develpoments, and I know I'm right about your INCORRECT posts about airline responsibility, so I could give a shit WHO fed you the info, it is DEMONSTRABLY incorrect. It's not a matter of what I think, it's a simple issue of law which you cited incorrectly. Look in your torts text. Despite your cute animated scene where you dominate me, it's not my opinion, it's fact. Here's the post you can't remember, from 3-20-02 "Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Sueing the airlines for what? They did not fail in any way, or show any negligence. Keep in mind the items used in the hijackings were allowed per FAA rules. The airlines are not culpable. You are absolutely wrong. Boxcutters made their way through security, they are not allowed, trust me, my mother and girlfriend's mothers work for airlines. As far as negligence, I belive negligence per se would cover this one, especially since all you would need to know is that the airplane was used to murder thousands including the passengers. If you loan your car to a friend who murders with it, do you think its any different for you when the plainiff looks for the deep pockets?" FIRST, "Negligence per se" has NOTHING to do with whether the airlines are culpable in this event. Negligence per se means the act itself is so dangerous that to do it mandates liability. Example, driving 150mph in a school zone. You hit someone, it dosn't matter how "careful" you were being, a lack of care will be imputed becasue of the dangerous nature of your act. Whether or not the airlines were lax in security, it has nothing to do with negligence per se. Aslo, your "example" of negligence per se, loaning the car, IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE, either. Unless I had reason to believe the friend was dangerous, I'm not liable at all becasue I'm not negligent. Even if I thought you were a crappy driver, it's NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE. Read your auto insurance policy sometime, the DRIVERS insurance pays primary, not the owner's. If one of your professors told you negligence per se applies to this situation, get a refund and change professors. I suspect, however, you are misreading your notes. Flying a fleet of planes using security mandated by the Federal Govt does NOT fit the definition. (continued below)
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 7:12:49 PM EDT
(continued from above) Second, you are 100% incorrect, AGAIN, about the boxcutters. They were permittd on domestic flights, as were regular pocket knives under 3" without serrated blades. How do I know, I flew with one for 10 years, and have since seen several reputable sources state that the boxcutters were permitted pre Sept 11. You don't say what security position your mom and GFs mom occupy, in fact you just say they work "for" the airlines. I flew in and out of LAX, JWA, Reagan, San Fran, Oakland, Chi, and a host of other airports, and put my spiderco in the tray with my keys. It was returned EVERY time. Oh, your non-sequitor about not working for an intellectual property firm, so it's OK to commit a crime in the copyright arena, be careful about crimes involving moral turpitude, the bars usually frown on that kind of thing. Also, to extend your argument, I'm OK as long as I don't break any laws that I don't directly work on as an attorney? Nice sliding scale of morality, you'll fit right in. BTW: Ironic as in, you seek to be an officer of the court, yet you flaunt the law when it suits you. Ever see a successful copyright defense consisting of "But I didn't cost them any money?" So please, sir, explain (squash) my "theories" about liability. I'll check back frequently.
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 7:22:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TylerDurden: I will buy both... [:D]
View Quote
As will I. One copy because I must have it. The "extras added" edition just because the Skinny community in Minnesota is boycotting it.
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 8:51:41 PM EDT
Jarhead_22, The Somalis in Minnesota aren't "skinny." As the owner of several copyrighted software applications, I am looking forward to my first $100,000 "sale" when one of my customers illegally copies a program.
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 10:40:16 AM EDT
BTT, for Minman.
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 11:57:17 AM EDT
Ok, we'll start with the fact that the boxcutters are not allowed, it was on the list along side just about all knives. My mother is a flight attendant and former union rep, so she knows her stuff. I never got by security with my "ladybug" spyderco knife here in NY, Chicago, Ft Lauderdale, Vegas or St Louis, I also highly doubt your Chicago claim, since I couldn't get by that security with my black tiny swiss army knife two years ago. Cite your sources, don't just claim they are reputable, you have no credit with out of hand comments. My girlfriend's mother is a baggage screener and knows every piece of contraband known to the FAA and Southwest Airlines, and guess what? (Make a lawyerly inference!)...SHE even says that that item was banned pre-9/11. As far as negligence goes, if a piece of contraband finds its way onto a plane, wouldn't you say that it was the proximate result of airline negligence (assuming that the screeners are AA hired and paid). (On my car hypo, I forgot to mention that you knew he intended to kill with it.) Going back to the per se discussion, IF Logan Airport decided to allow these items, contrary to federal law, then there is negligence per se. Additionally, regardless of the per se argument, you can find negligence on any number of grounds, starting with the fact that the pilots gave control of the plane to the terrorists (contrary to federal law), which enabled the terrorists to commit their atrocity. Another way of looking at this was that the airlines failed to maintain control of the planes, or would you say that they did all that was "federally mandated?"
Oh, your non-sequitor about not working for an intellectual property firm, so it's OK to commit a crime in the copyright arena, be careful about crimes involving moral turpitude, the bars usually frown on that kind of thing. Also, to extend your argument, I'm OK as long as I don't break any laws that I don't directly work on as an attorney? Nice sliding scale of morality, you'll fit right in.
View Quote
Did I even say anything about it being OK to violate copyright laws or anything? NO, I merely said you inappropriately used the term "ironic." When was the last time you or your kids or wife downloaded a song or something? Claiming you or a member of your household never has either makes you liar or a very lonely person with a lot of ethics. [rolleyes] What bugs me most is that you're such an anal retentive prick, that you couldn't let the airline issue go. Was it because someone said something contrary to your "opinions?" Until there is a court ruling on this topic, neither of us is correct, we only have opinions on prior law. In this political climate following 9/11, anything is possible.
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 1:00:54 PM EDT
Greetings Minman. First, you asked for sources, here's what I've got: From http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/1954/ "American Airlines allowable knife length Added by craigmerrell on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 at 2:22 PM Ready for this? I just spoke with Security for American Airlines at their D/FW offices. I was told that, even though the FAA allows 4" folding knives on passengers, American's official policy is a maximum length of 2 1/2", and, of course, no fixed-blade knives. Serrations are also prohibited. I even had one person at American's office ask me why I would ever need a knife on an airplane! Well, the knife I'm talking about has tweezers that are handy with splinters, a toothpick that's good for left-over airline food, scissors good for threads and magazine article removal, a nail file and cleaner that's good for--well, that's obvious. When I mentioned this last point, the nail file & cleaner, he said that he is "always careful to take care of that before he gets on the plane"! Gee, I wonder if he ever uses the restroom or brushes his teeth while flying--or if he's always careful to take care of those items before flying, too. Oh, yeah, I was told that a concealed telescoping baton (I'm a personal protection officer traveling with a client.) was prohibited, but a baseball bat or golf club would be okay. Anybody ever hear about Jack Nicholson attacking a fellow motorist with his golf club and causing several thousand dollars' worth of damage to the person's car? Or about people who use baseball bats as deadly weapons? Go figure. I mean, really, I wear a $22,000 Rolex, a $10,000 diamond class ring, and carry a $500 custom-made pocket knife with a 3 1/2" blade. Who in control of his own mind could possibly profile me as someone who's going to try to commandeer an airliner? This is absurdity carried to the next higher level, especially since the federal agency that covers such details says that a 4" knife is just fine with them. I think it's time to switch to another, more reasonable air carrier." From: http://www.packing.org/airlines/ October 10, 2001: With the tradgedy of September 11, 2001, the following new procedures are being enforced with respect to commercial flying: No knives or other sharps: No sharp implements at all. This includes pen-knives, razors, pocket knives, box-cutters, etc. FROM: http://www.firstchoice.co.uk/info/travelinfo/airlinesecurity.cfm Information on airline security As a result of September 11th and in accordance with instructions from the DTLR (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions), airlines in conjunction with the Airport Authorities will be carrying out additional security checks throughout the Airport. The following items are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from being carried in the cabin. Toy or Replica Guns Catapults Razor Blades Swiss Army Knives/Pen Knives/Knives with blades of any length (continued)
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 1:21:41 PM EDT
The first citation shows the status quo before Sept 11, the last several show NEW regs since then. So I think that I have established that FAA regs permitted 4" folding knives before Sept 11, so boxcutters were no prohibited by fed regs. So there is no violation of Fed regs, so there's no negligence per se. Your mom et al may work for airlines that EXCEED federal regs, but that does not establish a violation needed for NPS. Your car hypo STILL doesn't establish NPS. Would it be negligent? Yeah, I toss you the keys knowing you'll kill with my car, I'm gonna pay, but it's NOT nps. If a kid without a driver's license gets rear ended while driving, there's no NPS, because there's no connection between the violation and the event. If that same kid rear ends someone else, it IS NPS. So we're off NPS for now, OK? (I NEVER said nobody will be able to hit the airlines for "negligence, just that it was NOT NPS. Your last post states that we won't know who is correct until the courts sort it out. I disagree. I have focused on your incorrect use of a term of art, not whether or not the airlines will end up writing huge checks for Sept 11.) Is it negligence anyway? Somebody WILL make that argument, but if the airlines followed the FAA regs, the hijackers simply exploited the regs, so it would be a tough argument. Re your pilots turning over the plane, now you're far afield of what I called you on. You're also thinking like a lawyer. Good. Decent argument, especially if there are regs against turning over the plane, even if not, actually. The airline will argue that the pilots were dead before they turned over the controls, something supported by the hijacker's pilot training, apparently they had contingency plans for hero pilots. I don't know if they can ever tell what happenned, but I'd argue for the airlines that even if they did turn over the planes, resistance would have yielded the same result, since the terrs could fly. On to my ethics: I have never downloaded or otherwise copied copyrighted material other than as provided in the fair use provisions, nor has my wife. My daughter is only 6mos, but I will strive to raise her correctly. Am I therefore lonely? No one I have ever met has said that they won't associate with me because I am ethical. I'm usually not this preachy, though. I certainly wouldn't turn you in for your actions. It IS ironic, though, that you seek to be an officer of the court, yet flaunt this LAW. You resist because you don't like to think about it in terms of what you've done (violated law), rather, you express it in terms of what you DIDN'T do, ie it didn't cost the studios money. I do appreciate the debate. You are tenacious, which will come in handy. I believe that words have specific meanings. As a lawyer, you will be a wordsmith of sorts. Use language precisely and you will go farther than if you use it imprecisely. If you don't mind, what law school are you attending? Any areas of law interst you yet? I just read an article that says the market is picking back up in PRK, but they don't expect it to recover to the pre bust levels. That tech industry was pretty volatile, anyway.
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 1:47:22 PM EDT
Minman As long as we're discussing liability, here's an intersting case I certainly didn't consider: From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020408/bs_nm/attack_lawsuit_dc_1&printer=1 American Air Sued in WTC Attack Mon Apr 8, 2:58 PM ET By Gail Appleson NEW YORK (Reuters) - American Airlines, a unit of AMR Corp was sued for more than $50 million on Monday by the husband of a highly paid portfolio manager who was killed on Sept. 11 in her World Trade Center office. The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, was brought on behalf of Bonnie Shihadeh Smithwick who had worked at the Fred Alger Management Company on the 93rd floor of the north tower known as One World Trade Center. The tower was hit by American Flight 11 after hijackers took control of the plane. The suit alleged that Smithwick survived the initial impact of the attack and telephoned her husband, Thomas Smithwick, using a cellular phone. However, she was unable to escape the raging fire and died when the tower collapsed. The Smithwick suit sees $50 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages for the terror, pain and suffering, wrongful death and economic loss. John Kelly, the plaintiff's lawyer, said Smithwick was highly paid and her estate would not have been eligible to receive any money from the Sept. 11 Victims Compensation Fund because she had substantial life insurance policies. "Ms. Smithwick's case presents a clear example of the fundamental flaw in the Victims Compensation Fund...any compensation due under the plan is reduced by monies received from collateral sources such as life insurance policies," Kelly said. "In Ms. Smithwick's case, that amount would be reduced to zero." The compensation program is part of an airline assistance package approved by Congress in September. By taking part in the program, families of victims give up their right to sue and seek damages from any defendants, such as the airlines or the World Trade Center. About 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11 attacks by three hijacked airliners on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites) and the crash of a fourth hijacked plane in Pennsylvania. Although other suits have been filed stemming from the hijacked airplane attacks, Kelly said he believes this is the first brought against American Airlines on behalf of a victim killed inside of the World Trade Center. A spokesman for American said the company does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit accuses American and Globe Aviation Services, the company it contracted with to operate the security system at Boston's Logan Airport, of negligence and reckless misconduct. The suit alleges that several hijackers who boarded American Flight 11 at Logan succeeded in transporting weapons through the screening and security systems. It alleges the defendants' inadequate security measures and deficient passenger screening system were insufficient to combat the risk of terrorist activity on domestic flights. Somebody in one of the Towers was the victim.
Link Posted: 4/9/2002 9:26:59 AM EDT
BTTT
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:33:53 AM EDT
BTTT
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:51:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: BTTT
View Quote
Sometimes you fish for days and still come home empty handed.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:44:06 AM EDT
So, who is suing the governement because they lost a loved one in Somalia? Scott
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:40:24 AM EDT
bttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:47:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: bttttttttttttttttttttttttt
View Quote
Give it up.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:58:47 AM EDT
Originally posted by CITADELGRAD87: bttttttttttttttttttttttttt
View Quote
Can anyone say TROLL
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:01:15 AM EDT
So, what is happening with the lawsuit about the people killed in Somalia? Scott
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:06:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dukota:
Originally posted by CITADELGRAD87: bttttttttttttttttttttttttt
View Quote
Can anyone say TROLL
View Quote
[:K]
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:24:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Originally Posted By Dukota:
Originally posted by CITADELGRAD87: bttttttttttttttttttttttttt
View Quote
Can anyone say TROLL
View Quote
[:K]
View Quote
Next...... Scott
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:57:40 AM EDT
Uh, thanks for the advice, and the label, but I'm not giving this up just yet. FWIW, that's the first time I've been called a troll, and I've been here for 3 or so years. Minman spewed bullshit, I called him on it, he asked for support, which I provided. Read my last post, I'd call it conciliatory, to say the least. As a law student, he may have a wacky schedule. Oh, one more thing, BTT.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 12:09:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: Uh, thanks for the advice, and the label, but I'm not giving this up just yet. FWIW, that's the first time I've been called a troll, and I've been here for 3 or so years. Minman spewed bullshit, I called him on it, he asked for support, which I provided. Read my last post, I'd call it conciliatory, to say the least. As a law student, he may have a wacky schedule. Oh, one more thing, BTT.
View Quote
BRAVO TANGO TANGO Troll Scott
Link Posted: 4/12/2002 9:25:00 AM EDT
Troll to the top.
Link Posted: 4/15/2002 9:40:47 AM EDT
B.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top