babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Describe your feelings about Taiwan...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Describe your feelings about Taiwan...
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 15 May 2004 11:58 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1. While the Democratic Progressive Party is ideologically closer to the Liberal Party of Canada or to the Liberal Democrats in the UK than to the NDP, they present a far better social democratic vision than the Chinese "Communist" Party. Taiwanese businesses are not permitted to mistreat overseas workers, Taiwanese workers are permitted to organise and strike, and business is regulated far better than it is in China.

2. Taiwan is neither a Chinese province nor a full-fledged country. It is an independent diplomatic and administrative territory whose government has a mandate from the vast majority of its non-Mainlander population. (The Mainlanders are generally fascist reactionaries who have done little more than exploit cultural strike between Hoklo and Hakka (all three are the same ethnicity, but so are Serbs and Croats.) and use the government as an instrument of fascism and Apartheid. They have about as much legitimatcy to influence Taiwan's affairs as Americans have to influence Iraq's or Han Chinese have to influence Tibet's.)

3. The Taiwanese nation comprises Hoklo, Hakka, miscellaneous Han Chinese who are not Mainlanders but don't fall into the other two groups. non-Han aboriginals, and all foreigners who share their aspirations. Mainlanders who have not culturally assimiliated themselves into the Hoklo or Hakka groups and who view themselves as loyal to China before Taiwan are not part of the Taiwanese nation.

4. Hoklo is defined as a Han Chinese from the Fujian province area who immigrated to Taiwan prior to the Chinese Civil War or anyone who has assumed a Hoklo cultural identity.

5. Hakka is defined as a Han Chinese from various areas of Northern China who immigrated to Taiwan prior to the Chinese Civil War or anyone who has assumed a Hakka cultural identity.

6. Aboriginal refers to a member of any of the native tribes who lived on Taiwan prior to the island's settlement via Han Chinese. I'm not sure if it is possible for outsiders to assimilate into these tribes.

7. Mainlander refers to the descendants of Chiang Kai-shek and his fascist followers who invaded Taiwan after knowing that they had lost the Chinese Civil War. Neither the Mainlander-dominated Chiang governments nor the CCP are legitimate Taiwanese governments because they never received a mandate from the Taiwanese people. While not generally common, it is possible for individuals of Taiwanese heritage to assume a Mainlander identity, as former Kuomintang presidential candidate Lien Chan has done. Taiwan's first legitimate President was former Kuomintang leader Lee Teng-hui, the first democratically elected and non-Mainlander President.

8. Lee Teng-hui and his followers leaving the Kuomintang has deprived it of all legimacy as a Taiwanese political party. The same is true of other Pan-Blue parties.

9. In terms of religious freedom, civil liberties, democratic rights, gay rights, labour rights, and freedom of press and expression, Taiwan is imperfect but, since the beginning of the democratic era, has been the best in Asia, even surpassing Japan.

10. Taiwan is the only nation in the world where the existance of Focus on the Family is a positive development. (Have to bash the religious reich somewhere.)

11. Most world leaders, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac, have failed miserably in respecting the diplomatic rights of Taiwan. Especially lamentable is the fact that the USA was friendlier to Taiwan when it was a Chiangist American puppet state.

12. Taiwan's fate as either a Chinese territory or independent nation can only be decided by a referendum participated in by Hoklo, Hakka, Aboriginals, and foreigners who have assumed a Taiwanese identity. This referendum must not allow Mainlanders and must be called by a government led by a legitimate Taiwanese that had been democratically elected by the Taiwanese people.

13. It is possible to identify oneself as both Chinese and Taiwanese, but Taiwanese must be a Taiwanese's primary identity.

14. Mainlanders and big business who don't like this arrangement and would prefer uniting with China should just stop whining and move there.


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
charlessumner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2914

posted 16 May 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for charlessumner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NDP Newbie:
11. Most world leaders, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac, have failed miserably in respecting the diplomatic rights of Taiwan.

What would you change?


From: closer everyday | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 16 May 2004 12:34 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by charlessumner:

What would you change?


I'd recognise the fact that Taiwanese people are actually human beings and global citizens, and work to give them observer or membership status (as appropriate) in such bodies as the World Health Organisation (so fascist it bans Taiwanese journalists from covering World Health Assembly meetings) and the UN (which likes to pretend Taiwan doesn't exist).

And why do I trust the NDP so much on this issue?

Due to the many issues that New Democrats are passionate about that Taiwan is good on and China is bad on.

And unlike American reactionaries like Jesse Helms or Tom Delay, I see Taiwanese people as people, not as pawns to oppose the non-existant "Chicom" boogeyman.


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 May 2004 04:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Taiwan?

Taiwan is a small Island of the coast of China. It has traditionaly been part of China and was colonized by them some time ago. As is traditional the reigning Chinese government claims that it is part of China. Since the revolution in China, the enemies of China have been using the island as a means to attack China politically and diplomaticaly by supporting anti-Chinese policies by the Taiwanese.

Taiwan? Taiwan is part of China. Those are my feelings about Taiwan.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 16 May 2004 04:55 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Taiwan?

Taiwan is a small Island of the coast of China. It has traditionaly been part of China and was colonized by them some time ago. As is traditional the reigning Chinese government claims that it is part of China. Since the revolution in China, the enemies of China have been using the island as a means to attack China politically and diplomaticaly by supporting anti-Chinese policies by the Taiwanese.

Taiwan? Taiwan is part of China. Those are my feelings about Taiwan.


The Mainlanders who were so against China years ago lost much of their power in Taiwan. Now, they're ganging up with the big corporations and with the blind nationalism of China's citzens, as they would rather be ruled by tyrants from Beijing than by left-leaning Hoklo.

They just love Tyranny in general and know that "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a merely a euphemism for "fascism covered in red finger paint".


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 May 2004 04:57 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
k
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 17 May 2004 01:17 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did you know that the Kuomintang is in the same international organisation as the GOP, the CPC, and the Australian Liberal party?

More proof that Taiwan should be an independent country and that the Kuomintang assholes should shut up and go away.

Incidentally, anyone notice how the rightist parties tend to be pro-China in Hong Kong, while the leftist and libertarian parties tend to be anti-China?

[ 17 May 2004: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 May 2004 03:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that Taiwan is part of China.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 17 May 2004 04:08 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really enjoyed Eat Drink Man Woman. That's really about all that Taiwan inspires in me at the moment (although I'm certainly learing more from your regular posts, NN).
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 17 May 2004 09:10 AM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... and East Timor is rightfully part of Indonesia.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 17 May 2004 09:14 AM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... and Judea and Samaria rightfully part of Israel.
From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
MikeFromKingston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5727

posted 17 May 2004 10:01 AM      Profile for MikeFromKingston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And Alaska part of Canada
From: The Eather of Cyberbia | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
MikeFromKingston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5727

posted 17 May 2004 10:02 AM      Profile for MikeFromKingston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or is it Canada part of Alaska? I can never keep it straight.
From: The Eather of Cyberbia | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 17 May 2004 10:20 AM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nevermind - question earlier in the thread.

[ 17 May 2004: Message edited by: DownTheRoad ]


From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 May 2004 04:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the whole idea of comparing the relationship between China to Timor or to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a little simplistic. I mean there is a case for saying that Quebec is not part of Canada too, yet it is. I'm all for self determination, but can we say that Taiwan's nominal independence from China is actually a result of self-determination, or is it as result of US support for anti-Chinese forces.

Chinese influence over Tawain goes back 400 years more or less, and while Taiwan was not declared a province of the Celestial Empire until the 1880's, there are clear social cultural links bewteen the mainland and Taiwan. I think Taiwan is part of China.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 18 May 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a rather shallow understanding of Taiwanese history. The island was settled by Malayo-Polynesian peoples. It was under Dutch colonial rule from 1624 to 1662, and in this period settlement from mainland China began as part of an expansion of Chinese peoples into island Southeast Asia in tandem with the expansion of European colonialism. The Chinese population of Taiwan dates from the same waves of migration as the Chinese population in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia etc.

After 1662, the Dutch were driven out by the "pirate" leader Koxinga who ruled Taiwan as an independent fiefdom until he was defeated by the Qing empire in 1683. The Qing were Manchus who ruled over Manchuria, China, Tibet, parts of Turkestan (now Xinjiang) and Mongolia. Like other non-Chinese dynasties in the past, it ruled its non-Chinese provinces separately from China. After the Qing empire fell in 1911, Mongolia and Tibet became independent. Mongolia still is, but Tibet was recolonized in the 1950s.

As to Taiwan, it was under official Qing rule but central authority by the ocean-fearing Manchus was almost non-existent. Coastal Taiwan was freely used by Europeans and even spent some time under French control before becoming a Qing province in 1887.

In 1895 Japan defeated China in a war, ending Qing suzerainty over Taiwan and Korea. An independent Taiwan was declared, but quickly suppressed by Japanese military forces. Taiwan became a Japanese colony. It was known as the "model colony," in contrast to rebellious Korea. There was certainly little sign of a movement for unification with China. By 1945, Taiwan had spent longer under Japanese direct rule than it had under the rule of China. Mao Zedong is even reported to have said in the 1930s to reporter Edgar Snow that he supported movements for independence in Korea and Taiwan.

During WWII, the United States agreed that Chiang Kai-shek's China would be given Taiwan as part of the spoils of war. (Chiang's troops also tried to grab North Vietnam, which had been under Chinese rule for 1,000 years before gaining its independence, but were forced to withdraw by the Vietnamese nationalists under Ho Chi Minh.)

Chiang's troops committed a series of outrages in Taiwan, culminating in a famous 1947 massacre. They were clearly there as occupiers, not as liberators. In 1949, Chiang's regime fled to Taiwan after being decisively beaten in China. The Truman administration initially had no plans to defend them, dismissing the KMT (rightly) as rotten to the core. Only in 1950 with the Korean war did the US move to defend Chiang's regime and transform Taiwan into what General MacArthur called "our unsinkable aircraft carrier." Taiwan then lived under a US-backed dictatorship for quite a few decades.

So Taiwan's history has diverged sharply from China's. There are ties of kinship between some Taiwnese and some Chinese, certainly, but no more so than between Canada and the USA. Taiwan was only ruled from the mainland for five of the last hundred years, and a separate identity has been born in that period. People in Taiwan certainly have the right to self-determination.

But what i think is most interesting in Taiwan is the very successful transition from dictatorship to democracy. Taiwan is better placed than anywhere else in the world to serve as a laboratory for democratization in China itself. I certainly think Taiwanese people have the right to be independent and turn their back on China if they want (many do, but many others resist an official declaration of independence). It would be far more interesting if Taiwan offered to help China democratize, and China accepted the offer from their "cousins."


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 18 May 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
...It has traditionaly been part of China and was colonized by them some time ago...

I'm surprised to find a babbler citing prior colonization as evidence that a given nation doesn't deserve self-determination, given that virtually every nation on earth has been a colony at one point or another.


From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 18 May 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
England is traditionally part of Normandy!
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 18 May 2004 04:05 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think one could say without much difficulty that Ukraine would be well within its rights to annex Saskatchewan.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 May 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's a rather shallow understanding of Taiwanese history. The island was settled by Malayo-Polynesian peoples. It was under Dutch colonial rule from 1624 to 1662, and in this period settlement from mainland China began as part of an expansion of Chinese peoples into island Southeast Asia in tandem with the expansion of European colonialism. The Chinese population of Taiwan dates from the same waves of migration as the Chinese population in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia etc.

Yeah I read that pro-independece web site too: New Taiwan Your post is almost in the same order too, with the same information:History of Taiwan

Look, even if the Island was setteled by polynesians originally, this does not mean that the Chinese did not also immigrate in very large numbers (you point this out, but seem to ignore its relevance in your socio-cultural analysis.) The ideodlogical tint of your post is obvious in your description of the Chinese Pirate (read illigitimate-criminal) Lord who drove the Dutch (also pirates in their own right) out and ran the Island for the Chinese is a perfect exmaple of this.

In 1600 all navies were essentially pirate operations. Look at the Barbary Coast: Were not the Prirates there also Algerians? They paid their taxes! Their operations functioned as a tithe upon mediteranean shipping for Algeria. It was the politically influencial Corsairs that signed Algeria up to the Ottoman Empire. The friggin US navy was originally a bunch of privateers hired by the US government to intredict British shipping during the War of Independence. This does not mean that their operations are not a tangible expression of sovereign politcal power.

My point is simply that of all the nations that have a stake in Tawain, it is China that has the longest tradition of sovereignty over it. Also it has clear cultural, social and politcal links that go back to the 1600. No other country can make such a claim over Taiwan.

It is also obvious that its quasi-independent status has been artifically created by the US support of the Koumintang in opposition to the Chinese Communists since 1949. If Chaing's army had not retreated there, it would have fallen just like all other parts of what was internationally recognized as China. I think that if it were not for the last factor, Chinese sovereignty would not be in question. Even the Koumintang (the Islands rulers for the better part of the last century) never suggested that Taiwan was not part of China.

So, you have a tradition of various social and politcal ties that go back four hundred years. You have an actual sovereign claim that goes back to the 1890's, which is not even disputed either by China or Tawiwan's rulers for that entire period. That is nothing like the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or East Timor.

Yes, there is an independence movement, but there is no way that we here can establish that it is the will of all persons who live in Taiwan. The 50/50 spilt in the last election shows quite clearly that the Taiwanese are split on the issue.

At one time it was possible to conduct a survey that showed that nearly 50% of Quebec's population supported some kind of independence from Canada. This does not mean that Quebec is not still part of Canada.

[ 18 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 18 May 2004 05:17 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think discussing sovereignty claims works in general as a 'reductio ad absurdum'(is that phrased correctly?) of the the legitimacy of the nation state.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 May 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That is of course another point which I agree with. But in the context of common practices, laws and standards of international conduct, I am saying that Taiwain is part of China. That was the context of the original question and I answered it in that context.

This will be my view until such a time as there is a declaration of independence auhtorized by a clear process that establishes Taiwan's independence.

[ 18 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 18 May 2004 06:27 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cueball, I understand your point. But don't fifty some years of de facto independence (as evidenced by independent administration, currency, diplomatic measures, etc.) stand as a strong counter-balance to China's claims? And don't they make the Koumintang claims seem a little absurd?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 18 May 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually Cueball i agree about the "pirate" characterization not being fair -- that's why i put "pirate" in quotes. Koxinga is in most European historical accounts referred to as a "pirate king" but he was no more a pirate than they -- probably less so. (There are a lot of references to indigenous rulers in Southeast Asia essentially calling the Portuguese and Dutch pirates.) So please don't tell me what my ideological predispositions are. I also agree that the people in Taiwan are currently split over the independence question, and said so. I'd be careful about using election figures as evidence, however, the numbers there being also swayed by the party platforms and the fear of provoking the Chinese PLA.

The migration question is significant in Taiwan in the same way as it is significant in Singapore or Malaysia or Borneo, where Chinese migrants leaving South China at the same time also established communities that were under ambiguous sovereignties. The majority population in parts of West Borneo, for hundreds of years, were ethnically Chinese, self-governing communities, paying little or no attention to the Dutch colonial authorities. Does this confer a claim to Chinese sovereignty today? Does China have a claim to Singapore? To Penang? Migration was a social phenomenon throughout Southeast Asia, but that does not confer a political claim to sovereignty, which prior to the late 19th-century was divided and ambiguous -- and in the 20th century, as i've said, mostly not in the hands of China.

You're almsot certainly right that Taiwan would have been taken over by China in 1950 if not for US intervention. That was a historical contingency. So was the US decision to let Chiang's China have Taiwan in 1945 -- if it had been attending the wartime conferences as one of the "big four," it's unlikely that he'd have been offered Taiwan. But even if China had taken Taiwan in 1950, that does not meant the question would necessarily have been settled once and for all. It certainly hasn't been settled in Tibet, which was annexed in the 1950s using equally dicey historical argumentation. Remember that there was Taiwanese resistance to Chiang getting Taiwan until it ended in bloody massacre.

Anyways, all that's a long-winded way of saying that the claim "Taiwan is traditionally part of China" is really not accurate. Even if it was, and even if the whole situation was unambiguously the result of US gerrymandering in support of the Guomindang, there does seem to be a distinct Taiwanese identity that has emerged and that deserves consideration. Yes, that identity is historically contingent, but so what? All identities are, including the Chinese.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 May 2004 09:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes and no.

The "facts on the ground" arguement and dismissal of US intereference as relevant is starkly similar to the one being used by Sharon to further disenfranchise the Palestinians. Please remember that my original statement was made in the light of several statements made to the affect that the Chinese claim is as illigitimate as Israels claim to Judea and Sumaria and Indonesia's claim to east Timor. They bare no resembelance at all to those.

The terrain may be muddy but lets not forget that almost every single major party involved since 1890's has agreed to one thing, and that is that Taiwan is part of China. This includes every government that has ruled Taiwan until today.

In my view Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan is at least as legitimate as US sovereignty over, Texas, New Mexico and California. Moreso in many ways given the cultural and longstanding politcal ties. It is by far and away more legitimate than US domination of Puerto Rico. You make the point that mainland China has not directly governed Taiwan for the better part of the last century -- what is being ignored here is that the US has more or less operated Taiwan as quasi-colony of its own for the last fifty years. Why aren't we talking about that?

After all who really supported Chaing's repression of the indiginous anti-Chinese Nationalist movement in Taiwan? It was the USA that backed Chaing. Also, weren't many of those repressed pro-communists, not just anti-Chinese? Making a complaint solely against Chinese threat and political influence, in regards to the independence issue while ignoring US influence (and potential threat) is a little disingenous.*

Is it not the case that when national liberation became an active current in Quebec politics that the government of Canada directly intervened with not only the threat of force, but by sending the army into Quebec under the auspices of the War Measures Act in 1970? Since then Canada has expended millions trying to influence the Quebec political landscape. None of this detracts from the fact that Quebec is part of Canada.

There may be moral problems associated with the means that Canada has used to enforce its sovereignty but that does not detract from the fact of its soveriegnty.

Theoretically, if China were to enforce its sovereignty over Taiwan by military means it would be doing nothing more than exercising its right to have its army occupy its territory as Canada did in 1970 in Quebec.

* I am not saying that this is what you are doing, but it seems that some are.

[ 18 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca