Confusing remembrance of 1916

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Why can't they tolerate being part of a united Ireland?

Because they didn't want to be ruled by a country that was largely religously different from them and from a parliment they feel doesn't reflect them at all.

Funny, isn't that exactly the same reason we didn't want to be ruled from Westminster?

axer wrote:

What traditions would these be?

Catholics and Protestants have a long history of conflicting traditions.

axer

Wicknight wrote:

Because if you are talking about 1916 those brave souls giving their lives to "freeing" Ireland from its 800 year old democratic government were killing a whole lot of fellow Irish while doing it, and end up not achieving nothing.

2 points. 1st. Britain was not democratic for the Irish. 2nd. They inspired others to fight for independence. They knew they were not going to beat the British Army in a war in Dublin (especially when the day comes and only a fraction of your army are there because of confusion). So please less of the people saying it was a failure or it achieved nothing - IT ACHIEVED IT'S GOALS!!!!

Wicknight wrote:

To celebrate the Rising is to celebrate pointless and stupid bloodshed. Just because you support the cause doesn't change that fact. As a military action the Rising was a complete and utter disaster, based on ridiculously stupid military assumptions. The Rising members believed the Army would not shell Dublin, or risk a street battle, since they are a capitialist government. The Rising members had no plan to deal with the absence of law and order (they started shooting looters) or how to minimise civilian casualties.

They just wanted to hold on to Dublin for as long as possible. Very few of those that went out that day were military men - they did not expect to beat the British army with civilians in a war in Dublin.

Wicknight wrote:

People seem to conviently like to forget how the Rising memebers were attempting to achieve "freedom"

I mean I support Palestine and its right to exist along side Isreal. And I'm opposed to Isreal military actions in Palestine. That doesn't mean I support a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children in an attempt to "free" Palestine, nor do I believe such an action should be celebrated.

The only thing easier than dying for your country is killing for your country. The Rising was an exersice in killing for you country, not dying for you country. And not something I want to celebrate.

If someone wants to hold a memorial for the 480 civilians killed during the Rising I will be there.

They did not purposely go out that day to kill innocent civilians but it was inevitable - most were caught in the cross fire. How were they supposed to fight the British into getting back their country? Somebody tell me what they should have done instead? I think a memorial for the 220(+) civilians killed during the easter rising should also be part of the commerations.

axer

Wicknight wrote:

Because they didn't want to be ruled by a country that was largely religously different from them and from a parliment they feel doesn't reflect them at all.

But the parliment would have consisted of protestants and catholics or was it that they did not want to loose the power they posessed over the catholics?

Wicknight wrote:

Funny, isn't that exactly the same reason we didn't want to be ruled from Westminster?

nope

Wicknight wrote:

Catholics and Protestants have a long history of conflicting traditions.

like?

ivan087

axer wrote:

I don't think it is the best answer. Why can't they tolerate being part of a united Ireland? What traditions would these be?

erm...being british!

axer wrote:

crime, tourism, investment, currency and other practicalities of law i.e. two states on a very small island is not very practical. I don't think it is best for everyone as it stands.

1. both the british government and the irish government want increased cooperation in cross border crime, as does most northern parties, including unionists like the UUP. look at the recent arrests in louth/armagh.
2. tourism is done in an increasingly all-ireland basis. both tourist boards cooperate when selling ireland abroad.
3. currency - the adoption of the euro by northern ireland.

you see, there is no argument for a united ireland:) through good relations, dialogue, and membership of the european union there is no need for a united ireland. its just a romantic SF wet dream.

axer

ivan087 wrote:

erm...being british!

So they cannot tolerate being part of a united Ireland because they call themselves british?

ivan087 wrote:

1. both the british government and the irish government want increased cooperation in cross border crime, as does most northern parties, including unionists like the UUP. look at the recent arrests in louth/armagh.
2. tourism is done in an increasingly all-ireland basis. both tourist boards cooperate when selling ireland abroad.
3. currency - the adoption of the euro by northern ireland.

increase cooperation? It's not the same as the same organisation policing the whole of Ireland - the RUC (PSNI) do not share all information with Gardai and vice versa. Promoting Ireland by co-operation is fine but they are in competition with each other and that does effect their co-operation.

ivan087 wrote:

you see, there is no argument for a united ireland:) through good relations, dialogue, and membership of the european union there is no need for a united ireland. its just a romantic SF wet dream.

yes there is a need for a united Ireland. So you want the EU to become more of "one state"?

Flex

Wicknight wrote:

And if it is not the only way to end oppression then it isn't justified.

Id rather the fighting we did to win our independence, rather than the begging the IPP did for near 50 years for a crappy little Home Rule parliament which may have culminated in freedom whenever it suited Britain to permit us to have it.

Secondly, British "oppression" in Ireland in 1916 was mild by any standards of the word. As has been pointed out a hundred times, in 1916 Ireland was pretty much a democracy. It wasn't the democracy that some or a lot of people of Ireland wanted, it was a democracy in which the island of Ireland was too small a representation of the over all U.K. to be able to fully address the needs of the people (in the same way that the views 40% of the population of the USA are largely ignored by the government).

Would you consider Austria and Czechoslovakia in the 3rd Reich oppressed nations?

and in general people had high standards of living that was comparable with the rest of the U.K.

LOL! Youre joking right? Ireland was a ****hole. Worst living standards in Europe I think. 39% of Dublins population lived in slums described as being unfit for human habitation in 1912. The death rates from these living conditions along with infant mortality were worse than Calcutta.We existed to provide the British with an abundant source of cheap food. The only part of Ireland to do even moderately well out of the union was the Protestant dominated Lagan valley region and some surrounding areas.

Thirdly, even if Ireland was suffering much worse under British rule than it actually was, even if an action like the Rising was justified or legitimised before hand (which it wasn't), it was still a ridiculous, pointless, and down right stupid military action that showed very little reguard for the city of Dublin or the population of the city and which was doomed to failure before it started.

It was to inspire the people with blood sacrifice.

Fourthly the Rising was completely unnecessary. How can I said that? Because it didn't achieve anything. At all! I am still amazed people fail to grasp this relatively simple point. The Rising as a military action was a complete and utter failure. None of the objectives of the Rising were met. None.

If there was no rising would there have been a War of Independence? It set everything in motion.

The same system of democracy that means the people of Kerry cannot change the constitution of Ireland or remove themselves from the republic, even if every Kerry man and woman votes to do so. Ie the system of democracy we have now. The only thing different is the borders.

Better example would be if we annexed Iceland and then the vast majority of the people of Iceland sought independence but we ignored it because opinion in Ireland didnt favour it.

Pearse was an idiot, and his notions of Blood sacrifice were idiotic. And the Rising inspired nothing. Pearse expected the population to rise up in support. In fact the rising completely ignored at first and later caused wide spread out rage. Hardly sounds like the people of Dublin were falling over themselves to rise up against the "oppression" of Britian.

At the time of the rising the British were claiming the rebels were German collaborators and the rising was preparation for a German invasion of Ireland, so most families with relatives in the British army felt they were betraying them to help Germany, and most people had heard the horrors of Germany being the 'butcher of Belgium'. If people hated the rebels and the rising so badly then why on earth was there such a HUGE shift in public opinion in the aftermath when the leaders were executed? If people were angry at a group of people causing a rising that wrecked the city and killed hundreds of civilians, then why would they care if the leaders were executed, considering execution was the standard punishment of the day IIRC?

It would have been easier if they had just gone into the middle of O'Connel street and shot themselves in the head.

How would that have inspired the people to take up the armed struggle against British rule like previous generations had????

Maybe you should ask the families of the 480 civilians who were killed during the Rising if their deaths were justified.

Where do you get that figure from? I read 220.

ivan087

axer wrote:

So they cannot tolerate being part of a united Ireland because they call themselves british?


increase cooperation? It's not the same as the same organisation policing the whole of Ireland - the RUC (PSNI) do not share all information with Gardai and vice versa. Promoting Ireland by co-operation is fine but they are in competition with each other and that does effect their co-operation.

yes there is a need for a united Ireland. So you want the EU to become more of "one state"?

ok let their be a united ireland. but are you ready to accept their traditions? are you ready to change the national anthem, national flag, join the commonwealth, change the name of the gardai, change some of our symbols, foot the huge cost of a united ireland (even a country the size of britain go mad at the cost), pay the 40% of people in the north who work in the public sector, pay the security costs, the list goes on...

axer

ivan087 wrote:

ok let their be a united ireland. but are you ready to accept their traditions?

yes any traditions as long as they are not sectarian/incite hatred of another ethnic or otherwise group.

ivan087 wrote:

are you ready to change the national anthem,

yes

ivan087 wrote:

national flag,

yes

ivan087 wrote:

join the commonwealth

why? we would not be part of the UK/would not be british nor would we have any affiliation to any monarch in Britain.

ivan087 wrote:

change the name of the gardai,

Yep

ivan087 wrote:

change some of our symbols

like what? the harp? Yep.

ivan087 wrote:

foot the huge cost of a united ireland (even a country the size of britain go mad at the cost)

I believe Britain would have to pay some. I think they would be glad to get rid of Northern Ireland.

ivan087 wrote:

pay the 40% of people in the north who work in the public sector

That is the reason why most unionists don't want a united Ireland because they are getting by easily with the nice cosy situation they have. Restructuring would definitely have to happen there.

I don't see why would have to change the flag as it already represents the peace between catholics and protestants, but if needs be...

murphaph

axer wrote:

So they cannot tolerate being part of a united Ireland because they call themselves british?

You see this is the crux of the matter. I accept that you ARE irish, yet you won't accept that those up there ARE british, you just think they just "call themselves" british but are really irish deep down. It's a fundamental mental block that you people have. You just can't understand that the prods and some catholics up north ARE brits.

Anyway, to those spouting about how we became a 'free'. nation following independence, that's b0ll0cks frankly. We were dominated, absolutely dominated by a repressive church instead of an oppressive government! There were slum conditions all over the UK in 1912 people,not just Dublin! If anything, the UK welfare state tackled these slums before we did. The picture painted here is a rosey democratic state when that is far from true. Ireland was (and still is) dominated by a rural minority who (through the constitution guaranteeing 3 seats minimum to every constituency regardless of how few people live there) have an unfair bias in representation at Dail Eireann.

This was one of the reasons te industrial protestants of the North East were sh!tting themselves at the prospect of a government of people like Jackie Healy Rae. Sorry, but that's a plain truth.

We still don't even have readily available abortion for women in this so called 'free' nation and they have to 'shamefully' take the boat to England for them to sort our dirty little problems out. Divorce only recently came about too and the legalisation of homosexuality (happened something like 40 years ago in Britain) only came about in 1992 I believe. Free? Hardly.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

2 points. 1st. Britain was not democratic for the Irish.

Thats like saying their is no democracy in Kerry because they have to be elected to the Dublin parliment. The is democracy in Kerry, but that doesn't mean the Kerry can do what it likes, even if all of Kerry wants to do it.

As I said, it wasn't a question of democracy, it was a question of borders

axer wrote:

2nd. They inspired others to fight for independence.

And?

The goal of the Rising was to inspire the country to rise up at the time. They didn't. They ignored the Rising completely until people started getting killed at which point ignoring turned to outrage.

Besides killing people in an effort to "inspire" future generations to rise up is not something I think is a justifiable as far as violence goes.

axer wrote:

So please less of the people saying it was a failure or it achieved nothing - IT ACHIEVED IT'S GOALS!!!!

The blood sacrafice aspect was locked well into the head of Pearse before and during the Rising. It was not the goal of the Rising. It only immerged when it became clear the Rising was going to fail. If it had been a goal before hand i doubt anyone apart from the most idiotic Rising members would have gone along with it.

And even if the blood sacrafice goal was not achieved by the Rising. Most the of the leaders were captured. Even that aspect was a failure.

axer wrote:

They just wanted to hold on to Dublin for as long as possible. Very few of those that went out that day were military men - they did not expect to beat the British army with civilians in a war in Dublin.

Actually, yes they did. The leaders of the Rising, being the little socialists they were, believed that the British would not shell, siege or storm Dublin once the Rising members had taken control, because a capitalist government would not shell its own city. The Rising members believed that if they held Dublin that the British would not be able to control the rest of the country, and as such support from outside of Dublin could sustain the Rising. They also believed that the British would leave quickly, as they did not have the stomach or the man power to fight a war in Ireland during the world war.

The Rising was supposed to succeed.

axer wrote:

They did not purposely go out that day to kill innocent civilians but it was inevitable

That logic always reminds me of this line from the Simpsons

Marge: So... you want to go on tour with a traveling freak show.
Homer: I don't think I have a choice, Marge.
Marge: Of course you have a choice.
Homer: How do you figure?
Marge: You don't have to join a freak show just because the opportunity came along.
Homer: You know, Marge, in some ways, you and I are very different people.

Its not inevitable if you don't start a military up rising in a densely populated urban centre in the first place.

axer wrote:

How were they supposed to fight the British into getting back their country?

Er, I'm sorry did the Rising get the British to give our country back? Did I miss the part in my Leaving Cert history, the part where the British army left Ireland in 1916 and we formed a Republic based on the Easter proclimation?

axer wrote:

Somebody tell me what they should have done instead?

You don't have to stage a military uprising because the oppertunity presents itself, any more than you have to run off to a travelling freak show just because you can.

What exactly did the Rising do that we could not have done anyway?

Did the Rising allow for the formation of the Dial? No.
Did the Rising allow for the war of independence? No.
Did the Rising allow for the removal from the Commonwealth? No.
Did the Rising allow for the formation of the Republic? No.

None of these events needed the Rising to take place.

murphaph

axer wrote:

why? we would not be part of the UK/would not be british nor would we have any affiliation to any monarch in Britain.

Do you think India and Australia are in the UK?

axer wrote:

I believe Britain would have to pay some. I think they would be glad to get rid of Northern Ireland.

You bet they would. They'd love to offload it on us.

axer wrote:

That is the reason why most unionists don't want a united Ireland because they are getting by easily with the nice cosy situation they have. Restructuring would definitely have to happen there.

A euphemism for uneployment there axer. Unemployment breeds poverty and contempt. It'd not be long before they started wrecking the place again. Law and order is a foreign concept to many in NI.

axer wrote:

I don't see why would have to change the flag as it already represents the peace between catholics and protestants, but if needs be...

Are you really that naive? The Tricolour represents ONE thing to unionists-the IRA who draped their coffins in it enough times to sully that flag forever. A new flag would have to be drafted.

axer

murphaph wrote:

You see this is the crux of the matter. I accept that you ARE irish, yet you won't accept that those up there ARE british, you just think they just "call themselves" british but are really irish deep down. It's a fundamental mental block that you people have. You just can't understand that the prods and some catholics up north ARE brits.

are you not british if you come from Great Britain?

murphaph wrote:

Anyway, to those spouting about how we became a 'free'. nation following independence, that's b0ll0cks frankly. We were dominated, absolutely dominated by a repressive church instead of an oppressive government!

Thats why if the Parliment in Ireland had been formed from Protestants and Catholics in a United Ireland back in the early 1900's it would not have been dominated by such a repressive church as their would have been no 1 particular religion.

murphaph wrote:

This was one of the reasons te industrial protestants of the North East were sh!tting themselves at the prospect of a government of people like Jackie Healy Rae. Sorry, but that's a plain truth.

Jackie Healy Rae is an independent TD representing his constituency - he is not exactly taoiseach or even in Fine Fail.

murphaph wrote:

We still don't even have readily available abortion for women in this so called 'free' nation and they have to 'shamefully' take the boat to England for them to sort our dirty little problems out. Divorce only recently came about too and the legalisation of homosexuality (happened something like 40 years ago in Britain) only came about in 1992 I believe. Free? Hardly.

Hence the problem created because of a 1 religion government that was created.

axer

Wicknight wrote:

Thats like saying their is no democracy in Kerry because they have to be elected to the Dublin parliment. The is democracy in Kerry, but that doesn't mean the Kerry can do what it likes, even if all of Kerry wants to do it.

As I said, it wasn't a question of democracy, it was a question of borders

There is a big difference between the dail being in dublin and decisions being made from london.

Wicknight wrote:

And?

The goal of the Rising was to inspire the country to rise up at the time. They didn't. They ignored the Rising completely until people started getting killed at which point ignoring turned to outrage.

Besides killing people in an effort to "inspire" future generations to rise up is not something I think is a justifiable as far as violence goes.

The blood sacrafice aspect was locked well into the head of Pearse before and during the Rising. It was not the goal of the Rising. It only immerged when it became clear the Rising was going to fail. If it had been a goal before hand i doubt anyone apart from the most idiotic Rising members would have gone along with it.

And even if the blood sacrafice goal was not achieved by the Rising. Most the of the leaders were captured. Even that aspect was a failure.


Actually, yes they did. The leaders of the Rising, being the little socialists they were, believed that the British would not shell, siege or storm Dublin once the Rising members had taken control, because a capitalist government would not shell its own city. The Rising members believed that if they held Dublin that the British would not be able to control the rest of the country, and as such support from outside of Dublin could sustain the Rising. They also believed that the British would leave quickly, as they did not have the stomach or the man power to fight a war in Ireland during the world war.

The Rising was supposed to succeed.


That logic always reminds me of this line from the Simpsons

Marge: So... you want to go on tour with a traveling freak show.
Homer: I don't think I have a choice, Marge.
Marge: Of course you have a choice.
Homer: How do you figure?
Marge: You don't have to join a freak show just because the opportunity came along.
Homer: You know, Marge, in some ways, you and I are very different people.

Its not inevitable if you don't start a military up rising in a densely populated urban centre in the first place.


Er, I'm sorry did the Rising get the British to give our country back? Did I miss the part in my Leaving Cert history, the part where the British army left Ireland in 1916 and we formed a Republic based on the Easter proclimation?


You don't have to stage a military uprising because the oppertunity presents itself, any more than you have to run off to a travelling freak show just because you can.

What exactly did the Rising do that we could not have done anyway?

There were misunderstandings/communication problems that stopped many groups from rising at the time. How do you feel about independence from the Britain? Would you prefer to be still governed from London?
Tell me how Ireland would have gotten independence from Brtitain by peaceful means?

Wicknight wrote:

Did the Rising allow for the formation of the Dial? No.
Did the Rising allow for the war of independence? No.
Did the Rising allow for the removal from the Commonwealth? No.
Did the Rising allow for the formation of the Republic? No.

None of these events needed the Rising to take place.

But none of those events would have taken place if it wasn't for those who fought in the easter rising. Michael Collins, Eamon Dev etc all were part of the Rising and those are the people who setup the above.

flogen

ateam wrote:

1916 lead to the War of Independence, so i think it's appropiate to commemorate the starting point.

That's great; I wasn't saying we shouldn't commemorate it, I was saying it would be better to commemorate the entire war.

I was mainly asking what the official line is on this anyway?

axer

murphaph wrote:

Do you think India and Australia are in the UK?

I don't know about India but I do know that Australia have a Constitutional monarchy. I believe india became a republic in 1949 but decided not to leave the common wealth. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Commonwealth.

murphaph wrote:

A euphemism for uneployment there axer. Unemployment breeds poverty and contempt. It'd not be long before they started wrecking the place again. Law and order is a foreign concept to many in NI.

May sound "deep" but Its acting like a parentless child.

murphaph wrote:

Are you really that naive? The Tricolour represents ONE thing to unionists-the IRA who draped their coffins in it enough times to sully that flag forever. A new flag would have to be drafted.

Well I would not have a problem with a new flag then.

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

Id rather the fighting we did to win our independence

Fair enough. If you think achieving something through killing is better than achieving the same thing by not killing I'm not going to try and argue with you.

Flex wrote:

Would you consider Austria and Czechoslovakia in the 3rd Reich oppressed nations?

Would you consider the British government in 1916 the same as the Nazi party in 1940s?

Flex wrote:

39% of Dublins population lived in slums described as being unfit for human habitation in 1912.

Which continued well after the War of Independence. And which was compareable to London. So what would have been different with a parliment in Dublin?

Flex wrote:

It was to inspire the people with blood sacrifice.

It wasn't, but even if it wasn't that is a ridiculously horrific action. Starting an act of violent to inspire further acts of violence.

Flex wrote:

If there was no rising would there have been a War of Independence? It set everything in motion.

No it didn't. Everything that was effected by the Rising itself was already set in motion. Everything new that emerged after the Rising was set in motion by the actions of Sinn Fein's propaganda campaign and the Army.

Nothing was set in motion by the Rising itself that could be seen in any way as intentional

Flex wrote:

Better example would be if we annexed Iceland and then the vast majority of the people of Iceland sought independence but we ignored it because opinion in Ireland didnt favour it.

No, a better example would be if the members of the County of Desmond decided that they disagreed with the formation of the County of Kerry and the destruction of their county in 1606 and decide that actually we want their county back as an independent county

Do the memebers of the County of Desmond not live in a democracy? Yes they live in the same democracy as the rest of us. Do you think they would get a new county? Doubtful.

Flex wrote:

If people hated the rebels and the rising so badly then why on earth was there such a HUGE shift in public opinion in the aftermath when the leaders were executed?

If the people didn't hate the rebels so much why were they lining up to spit on them? If the people hated the British so much why did they not rise up when presented with the oppertunity? Why was the proclimation of the republic ignored?

The public objected to the execution of the rising members, which happened days after rising. That is not to say they supported the rising. If the members had not been executed the general population would have been perfectly happy for them to rot in jail.

People object to the treatment of Al Queda suspects in Git-mo and the treatment of Palestinian families in Isreal. Doesn't mean they support Al-Queda or Hamas.

If you didn't support the Rising it didn't mean you were on the side of the army, or approved of the actions of the army.

Flex wrote:

How would that have inspired the people to take up the armed struggle against British rule like previous generations had????

How did the hunger strikers inspire generations of republicans in the north? How did the Buddest monks inspire peace protests in Vietnam by setting themselves unfire in front of the American Embassy? How did Gandi inspire peace between Muslims and Hindus by refusing to eat.

You don't have to kill people to inspire future generations

Flex wrote:

Where do you get that figure from? I read 220.

Appologies, that was the total killed. The civilian deaths toll was 250

Zombrex

axer wrote:

There is a big difference between the dail being in dublin and decisions being made from london.

Yes there is, and that difference is the border of the democracy.

Both situtations are democracies, the only thing that changes is the size of the population base that makes up that democracy.

axer wrote:

How do you feel about independence from the Britain? Would you prefer to be still governed from London?

LOL ... oh mercy ... I was waiting for this. Next you will be calling me a West Brit ...

You know you won an argument with a republican when he starts saying that you would rather be living in or ruled by London :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

axer wrote:

Tell me how Ireland would have gotten independence from Brtitain by peaceful means?

Umm, news flash, we got independence from Britian by peaceful means Or maybe you don't consider the formation of the Republic as being "independence" since we still don't have the north.

axer wrote:

But none of those events would have taken place if it wasn't for those who fought in the easter rising. Michael Collins, Eamon Dev etc all were part of the Rising and those are the people who setup the above.

Actually, all of them would have.

Seriously, your logic is like saying if the Luas had broken down this morning I wouldn't have gotten to work. Of course I would have, I would have taken the bus.

There is absolutely nothing that the Rising did that allowed for anything that came afterwards that couldn't have been achieved without the Rising. It is pretty easy to say that because the Rising didn't allow for anything, it was a utter failure

murphaph

axer wrote:

are you not british if you come from Great Britain?

Semantics my friend. I can equally reply in an equally childish manner that you live in the British Isles ergo YOU are in fact british. See, semantics. Them up there are brits whether you like it or not, not because they live in the British Isles with you and I but because they themselves believe they are british. It's the same as a prod telling an irish nationalist catholic in NI that he's a UK citizen and british subject because he lives in the UK!

axer wrote:

Thats why if the Parliment in Ireland had been formed from Protestants and Catholics in a United Ireland back in the early 1900's it would not have been dominated by such a repressive church as their would have been no 1 particular religion.

So we should have waited for the war to end and the parliament act to be envoked (Lloyd George, a liberal, said he wanted to envoke the at he time, new act to overrule the Lords) and we would have had an all-island home rule scenario.

axer wrote:

Jackie Healy Rae is an independent TD representing his constituency - he is not exactly taoiseach or even in Fine Fail.

I used him as an example of the ranting raving rural moaners in all parties that populate Dail Eireann and disenfranchise urban Ireland in the process. 100 years ago Belfast and environs was the most urban place on this island, no wonder they didn't like what they saw coming.

axer wrote:

Hence the problem created because of a 1 religion government that was created.

See above. The parliament act was ready to be used by the Liberals to force through all-ireland home rule but it was all delayed for a little thing called the Great War, a war we fought in.

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

Semantics my friend. I can equally reply in an equally childish manner

1 week ban

This thread has done so much wagon circling,I'm gone dizzy reading it.

Locked