posted
There's a big hooha on campus right now about kicking Coca cola off campus in protest for their supposed many human rights violations.
Here's the quote from the event list's Coke's crimes:
quote:The Coca Cola Company is guilty of human rights abuses. In Colombia, they team up with paramilitary groups to terrorize and assassinate union leaders at its bottling plants in Colombia. Since 1990, they have killed 8 union leaders and have abducted, tortured, kidnapped and terrorized many more.
Furthermore, in India and Mexico, Coke has taken so much water into its bottling plants that there's not enough left for local farmers, and drinking water is so scarce that buying Coke is cheaper.
There's a national movement to get Coca Cola to stop these abuses by kicking it off of college campuses, and Skidmore is joining it!
The website seems to be the hub of the campaign against the Coca Cola bottling company. I'm not sure I believe some of these accusations, I mean they're pretty grim. You'd think if there was truth to them the US government would have already gone after Coke for Human Rights violations. Or the UN. What's the deal?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but do you have any idea how many products these days are produced by underpaid workers in other countries? Many of them are children. Just look at Walmart and the way they exploit workers in China. Stuff like this happens all the time, like companies working with places like Burma who have human rights violations. It happens constantly and nothing is really done about it by the government or the UN.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon,it would not surprise me if it turned out to be true.
Question: when American companies like Walmart and Coke do these sorts of things, are they under US jurisdictiction? If so, to what extent?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one should feel they have any right to take any hostile action against Coca Cola Corp. until there is conclusive, documented proof, generally accepted, that the charges against it are true. At the moment, this sounds no better than any of the looney conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society, or of the schizoid leftwing views of moveon.org or Roger Moore. Let the Berkeley, Ca., City Council vote on it. If they say Coca Cola Corp. is guilty, then that would be an almost certain indication that they are, in actual fact, completely innocent.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may well be true, but I'd suggest doing your own research. And if they think replacing Coke with Pepsi would be an improvement, they have a rude awakening in store.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm a little skeptical of it. But on the other hand it could be entirely true. It just seems like something right out of a Tom Clancy novel or something. The union leaders being murdered part anyway. The using up all of the drinking water feels a little more believable.
I'm not really sure how to go about doing my own research on something like this. As anyone else heard of this?
I mean, a google search turns up a whole lot of sites similar to killercoke. A news search turns up a bunch of student news papers. Hmm... looks like one of them claims it's been investigate and Coke was exonerated:
quote:The IDS ran a story on Feb.13 about the campus group No Sweat! and its goal to persuade IU not to renew an exclusive contract with Coke in 2009. According to No Sweat!, Coca-Cola has murdered and intimidated its workers at a Colombian bottling plant for some time now.
It’s a popular argument, but it doesn’t have much behind it. A 2001 lawsuit to this effect, filed in Miami against Coke, ended with the decision to dismiss any charges of Coca-Cola’s wrongdoing. In 2001, the court even exonerated the specific bottling plant, the one Coke has contracted. If that wasn’t enough, an independent investigation by the Colombian prosecutor general found “no evidence” of any wrongdoing on Coke’s part. Later, the union responsible for these workers, SINALTRAINBEC, even issued a public statement admitting that “not a single indication of this (murder of unionists by Coca-Cola) is true.”
Interesting. I wonder if I can find his sources -- he doesn't list them.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably all those websites that sound like killercoke just quote each other.
But college students frequently seem to be the most gullible people in the universe. They are at an unusally vulnerable point in their lives when much of their worldview is being challenged and radically altered. You would think that part of their collegiate eduction would be to learn critical thinking and what constitutes real evidence. But no--if they were taught that, then they probably would not believe three-fourths of what their professors say to them.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: [QB] It just seems like something right out of a Tom Clancy novel or something. The union leaders being murdered part anyway.
Believe it or not, things like this happen a lot in other countries, or at least in India. My mom was a big political activist back there and she told me that it could get very dangerous at times because if you went after the wrong people you would very likely end up dead. One of the main reasons she never got into any danger was because her dad was a judge and so she could request bodygaurds when she wanted, but it was very dangerous for her friends. The police forces in many countries that Coke has outsourced to aren't nearly as well equipped as ours are here, and that could definitely leave room for foul play. I'm sure if you really wanted you could find all sorts of information about this subject.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yeah, but do you have any idea how many products these days are produced by underpaid workers in other countries? Many of them are children. Just look at Walmart and the way they exploit workers in China. Stuff like this happens all the time, like companies working with places like Burma who have human rights violations. It happens constantly and nothing is really done about it by the government or the UN.
I was just listening to an article the other day about how China has new laws that force companies and manufacturers to give their employees contracts and to pay them penalties if those contracts are broken. They say it will raise costs for products, but it'll be more fair to workers, but the Boss's of the factories are hiring basically goons to attack the government workers that are trying to get the word out and teaching the workers about their rights. One guy was stabbed repeatedly and part of his leg is just dead muscle and tissue now. It reminds me of the US back in the 10's, 20's and 30's, it's the same battle going on (though I think a little worse). Pro-Union people died in America too at the turn of the century. There was a war in the streets.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yeah, but do you have any idea how many products these days are produced by underpaid workers in other countries? Many of them are children. Just look at Walmart and the way they exploit workers in China. Stuff like this happens all the time, like companies working with places like Burma who have human rights violations. It happens constantly and nothing is really done about it by the government or the UN.
I was just listening to an article the other day about how China has new laws that force companies and manufacturers to give their employees contracts and to pay them penalties if those contracts are broken. They say it will raise costs for products, but it'll be more fair to workers, but the Boss's of the factories are hiring basically goons to attack the government workers that are trying to get the word out and teaching the workers about their rights. One guy was stabbed repeatedly and part of his leg is just dead muscle and tissue now. It reminds me of the US back in the 10's, 20's and 30's, it's the same battle going on (though I think a little worse). Pro-Union people died in America too at the turn of the century. There was a war in the streets.
jeez. There was a little boy who was murdered for bringing to the attention children working in factories making rugs. It's horrible and more previlant than you can imagine. These companies will do anything to save money and make as much money as possible.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done a fair bit of study on turn of the century US labor rights struggles and the problems the US had, and I think we had a much better starting position than China has now.
I can imagine quite a bit.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No one should feel they have any right to take any hostile action against Coca Cola Corp. until there is conclusive, documented proof
posted
Rivka, I'm not sure if it does... from the article "Our trip to Colombia proved neither Coke's guilt nor Coke's innocence. But it did make clear that the victims of anti-union violence won't be satisfied until the Coca-Cola Company agrees to a thorough, independent human rights investigation."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Question: when American companies like Walmart and Coke do these sorts of things, are they under US jurisdictiction? If so, to what extent?
This is totally related to yesterday's International Law class.
As far as I gather, unless they are committing human rights violations in the US, the US cannot prosecute. They could be prosecuted in the country where they are committing human rights violations provided they are breaking the code of human rights in that country. They might be able to make the argument that since the company and the money is based in America it has a real and substantial link to the US, but that seems unlikely.
Otherwise, it's an international thing. I'm not sure who could bring that. Certainly someone in the Colombia could as I mentioned before. US could conceivably try to bring a claim in the Colombian court system (?). You're not supposed to bring a claim to the UN without exhausting domestic remedies but given the consequences (if, for example, there are no domestic remedies) the UN Tribunal might consider taking it on.
Of course, this is aside from the claim actually being valid.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a law in the US makes it against the law for a company to do this elsewhere, of course the company can be prosecuted in the US. While US law generally applies within the US, there's nothing preventing us from making laws that apply to the behavior of US companies abroad. For instance, we regularly prosecute people for doing business with countries on a list that we require people do not do business with, despite the business occurring outside the US.
Of course, most laws in the US do not apply outside the US, so it remains to be seen if an applicable law exists.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, there is photojournalism, and then there is the propaganda fantasies that people like Roger Moore shoot. Interviewing various people has no more weight just because you interview them on camera. What is needed is photo evidence (such as from hidden cameras) of the actual crimes being committed.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You would think that part of their collegiate eduction would be to learn critical thinking and what constitutes real evidence.
QFI
(I just came up with that, try to figure it out.)
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a Journalism major, I can say that Ron is right for the most part about college students. Not all, not even a majority, because that would imply that a majority were more than ambivalent about anything other than getting high and going to parties, and getting good enough grades so their parents don't start threatening to cut off their money.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reshpeckobiggle, would you be willing to offer an opinion as to why so many graduates turned out by J-schools seem to be extreme liberals in the NY Times mold, who appear to believe blatant bias is mandatory? (I had a minor in Journalism, but I did not turn out that way.)
Someone said on Fox News tonight that Sunday morning on Fox, Dianne Feinstein is going to launch a major campaign by women's organizations accusing the national news media of sexism and anti-feminism for its ill-treatment of Hillary Clinton. My response on hearing that was "Sic 'em!" And, "Hoist 'em high!"
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's extremely cynical that we're treating college students as "the most gullible people in the universe", who, for the most part, only care about parties and coasting through school.
How are they more gullible than the 3/4 of the US without a college degree? College *does* offer a bit more perspective on life--from meeting foreign exchange students, traveling abroad, being forced to read the news for poly sci classes--taking freshmen psychology and sociology.
And while you may believe that universities are just liberal indoctrination factories, I'll point you to 5-6 of my professors that harped on "critical thinking" as the most important thing to bring out of "this class". A lot of people didn't get it, but it's not like universities aren't trying.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a Journalism major, I can say that Ron is right for the most part about college students.
If you are going to use your (admittedly very weak) credentials to establish yourself as an authority, you should probably not transparently violate the strictures of that professional. You know very little about college students as a whole. You may know something about the few that you know, but you have authority on college students as a whole.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Not all, not even a majority, because that would imply that a majority were more than ambivalent about anything other than getting high and going to parties, and getting good enough grades so their parents don't start threatening to cut off their money.
That depends on what college you are going to.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pretty sure that most conservative Republican politicians went to college. Who changed them from their evil liberal ways?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that college students are being exposed to so many new things that they are still idealistic. It's a time of exploration, change, and hope. Sometimes it's easy to fool them because they are so used to completely reorienting their universe that nothing seems all that "far fetched" to them. On the other hand, sometimes it's not that they are gullible, just that they are idealistic. They don't have to deal with all the constraints of the real world yet so it's easy for them to make sweeping statements about right and wrong - just and injust - good and bad. I remember being a college kid - and being a college kid in the midst of all the hormones of adolecence at that. College kids aren't bad, and the world would be far worse off without them, but that also doesn't mean they're always RIGHT.
I think the claims being made against Coke are being overdramatized - but then again, some of the claims stand up to at least rudimentary evaluation, so there is probably a kernel of truth in it somewhere. Short of going to all the Coke plants around the world and seeing for myself, I doubt I'll be able to find unbiassed information.
Yet, all these questions have to be balanced against an even greater question - what is the solution? Would these area's truly be better off without Coke? Would the world be better off if American's drove Coke out of business with a boycott? Would the world be better off if the price of Coke was $5 a bottle? It's not easy to make sweeping generalized answers to those questions.
Throughout at least the last few centuries, intellectuals have been struggling to find a way to give everyone a high quality of life without trodding anyone else down. Socialism and communism were the biggest and most noticeable movements, but they never succeeded. It can be argued that this wasn't because they are inherantly flawed, but simply because a few unscrupulous people always break the system down by their own greed and selfishness.
I don't think that's the only problem however. After all, even small communes that colleagues and friends joined trying to make the best for everyone inevitably failed. People don't seem to truly be able to not try to sort themselves out into some type of pecking order - and why should we be surprised? Animal societies almost always have a hierarchy of some type. Even the Bible often seems to establish rank and file among the apostles. Having everyone be equal is what we may intellectual feel is right, it is probably even morally right, but it seems utterly impossible in practice.
I'm not justifying anyone murdering anyone else for profit. I'm not saying that my heart doesn't break for 6 year old kids who have to work 12 hours a day for a cup of broth. It does.
I'm honest about myself however. When I think about the life of the worst off children in the world and the life of my own son - well, I'm not really willing to average them out. Humanity hasn't reached a point yet where both sides of the coin can be up (isn't that an OSC idea from somewhere - when one side of the coin is up, the other is down?) . I'm not sure humanity every can. The real question isn't how can we punnish "bad Coke" - the real question is how much of our own, personal security and comfort are we willing to give up to help "average out" the benefits and suffering around the world.
We're spoiled here - we're soft. I we REALLY willing to give up a significant amount of our own comforts to give everyone on earth a better chance? I know it's the RIGHT thing to do, but honest self assessment tells me that I'm not really ready for it. Oh, I'll give up to a certain point, but my point isn't anywhere NEAR high enough to really change the world. Is yours?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Not all, not even a majority, because that would imply that a majority were more than ambivalent about anything other than getting high and going to parties, and getting good enough grades so their parents don't start threatening to cut off their money.
quote:You may know something about the few that you know, but you have authority on college students as a whole.
quote:That depends on what college you are going to.
Resh is probably using UNC in Greeley as his example for how he 'understands' college students.
I know absolutely and assuredly that UNC is nowhere near how he characterizes it and he's not even judging the student body he knows in a fair manner, so I feel he's even less credible when he talks about understanding how American college students are on the whole.
This whole spectacle kind of actually just depresses me.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This sort of thing happens all around the world. If you think about it, the world, if we keep this up, especially this country is close to collapse. You can't deny it. Outsourcing, exploiting workers overseas, destroying the environment, it's catching up with us. Do we have to be reduced to the level of 3rd world countries? Not nessasrily. I'm an optimist. I firmly think it's possible to make this world a better place, but there's so many things and concepts we don't need. One of which is selling people's safety just for a few worthless, useless products just so a small handful of people can keep being rich and getting richer. It doesn't really have to be like that at all.
Also, the constant never-ending generalizations BUG ME so much. It's like that bumper sticker that said, "My kid's in Iraq so your kid can party at college." Why make those assumptions? Why should a kid be fighting a war, risking their lives instead of getting an education.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As far as I gather, unless they are committing human rights violations in the US, the US cannot prosecute. They could be prosecuted in the country where they are committing human rights violations provided they are breaking the code of human rights in that country.
I thought the child sex laws have changed that precedent.
***
Regarding the whole liberal/conservative thing, I am reminded what my dad told me a while ago. "If you are a conservative when you are young, you have no heart. If you are a liberal when you are old, you have no brains." Or something like that.
He was, of course, being facetious.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something like that... It gets to the same point. I think that is the implication of the no brains/head brain thing I heard.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The saying was: "If you are not liberal when you are young you have no heart; and if you are not conservative when you are older, you have no brain." It is reputed to be a paraphrase of one of Otto von Bismarck's observations.
People do tend to move more toward the moderate center as they grow older. Even the arch-conservative, Barry Goldwater, is reputed to have mellowed out and become quite moderate and tolerant as he grew older.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Close Sam. CSU in Fort Collins, the largest school in the state. Thank God I don't live in Greeley.
I am making a judgment based upon the students I have known. I think I have met a sufficient number to have a decent enough sample group to make assessments about the population as a whole. Most don't care to know anything about ideologies or politics. Those that do are mostly very closed-minded liberals, and a smaller group are very closed-minded conservatives. Then there are the few who actually think. If you don't think my general assessment is valid, then tell me what I would be required to do in order to create a valid generalization of college students (after 3 1/2 years at one of the least liberal public universities in the state.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I'd say the answer to your question is that journalism students are much more likely to be interested in politics and policy than the average student, and as stated above, if a student even gives a damn in the first place he or she is highly more likely to be left-wing than right (for whatever reason that might be.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, gee. I've spent almost 7 years at three different schools, the first small, the second enormous, and the third overseas. Does that make me qualified?
College kids are kids. Kids can be foolish, short-sighted, and apathetic. They can also be passionate, activist, and aware. There's no blanket statement you can make. I had friends who were deeply concerned with the world, with politics, with social activism, with learning. I had friends who liked to go out drinking periodically. Many of them fell into both categories. Many still do.
But we were young (and still are), and we were sorting out how the world works. We did that by reading and debating the daily paper over dinner, by going to rallies, by contributing to the student paper, by volunteering. That wasn't everyone, of course, but it was a lot of us. Last night my house had a big party where we served absinthe. Today we discussed recycling policies in various countries.
Maybe you need to find a different crowd to hang with, Resh, if you think college students are in it for the partying and don't care about the world around them.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If you don't think my general assessment is valid, then tell me what I would be required to do in order to create a valid generalization of college students (after 3 1/2 years at one of the least liberal public universities in the state.)
You would need to demonstrate that your generalization is not unduly influenced by your own biases. That will be difficult to do considering your generalization is based purely on anecdotal experience. It's also difficult to justify calling somebody "close-minded". Some of the people you classify as "close-minded" may just be strongly opinionated (they understand why they believe what they believe). For example, I might say your views on evolution are so close-minded that they are only justifiable through straight denial of factual evidence. On the other hand, you might argue that you do know that facts and that you've reached your conclusion that evolutionary theory is incorrect through rational thought. From one perspective you are close-minded and from the other you are strongly opinionated. Establishing which perspective is objectively correct is tricky and would probably require psychological analysis. Two people can share the exact same viewpoints yet still one may be open-minded and the other one close-minded.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defending college kids is pointless; it is undeniable fact that they lack the wisdom that comes from experience, because they aren't old enough yet to have had much experience. Which isn't really their fault. They are also vulnerable, as I mentioned before, because their very psyches are in a state of flux as they are having their basic worldviews shaken and revised.
Perhaps more revealing would be to examine closely the professors who take advantage of students and use their positions of authority in the classroom to promote their personal liberal views on the vulnerable and susceptible kids, rather than teach real objectivity and the need for balance and critical thinking. These kids need a Fox News education--that at least presents all points of view--instead of an MSNBC or CBS education, that is totally dedicated to indoctrination in the liberal viewpoint.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am making a judgment based upon the students I have known. I think I have met a sufficient number to have a decent enough sample group to make assessments about the population as a whole.
And that judgment involves assuming the majority of college students just caring about getting high and partying. Or something like that.
As well as defining people as close-minded (sic) despite having one of the most egregiously incurious personalities I've seen.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Probably all those websites that sound like killercoke just quote each other.
But college students frequently seem to be the most gullible people in the universe. They are at an unusally vulnerable point in their lives when much of their worldview is being challenged and radically altered. You would think that part of their collegiate eduction would be to learn critical thinking and what constitutes real evidence. But no--if they were taught that, then they probably would not believe three-fourths of what their professors say to them.
It is only college students who can lead the masses in revolution, they are the vangaurd. Only they can experience the world as no one else can and educate those who cannot and lead them by the hand towards a glorious future.
IP: Logged |
posted
Gee, it's shameful how all those college students are being indoctrinated with those despicably wrongheaded views. If only they could be indoctrinated with my views instead...
Puh-lease.
If there is one wrongheaded view I saw over-represented in my exposure to higher education, it was the asinine notion that the students were coming into college tabula rasa and their professors were there, not to teach them the ins and outs of their respective subjects, but to teach them how to think.
Most of the college students I've encountered had very strong ideas and had already come up with their own ways of interpreting and processing new knowledge. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have gotten into their academic institutions in the first place. As much education came as a result of needing to set for themselves standards of responsibility- socially as well as academically- as anything in the classes themselves.
Some needed to learn more than others. Some needed to learn that you couldn't stay up all night watching movies three nights in a row and expect to pass your exams. Or how to efficiently organize their notes for study. Or how to break off a romantic relationship with someone they were going to continue to encounter every single day.
Faced with the freedom to do so, some changed their views on politics, drugs, relationships, sex, or faith. And some didn't. College didn't make that happen; in fact, it more likely provided a relatively safe place for those discoveries to happen, rather than having to deal with a crisis of faith or the loss of someone you thought you were going to be with the rest of your life while dealing with commuting, health insurance, making the rent, and working one or more jobs.
Where college students differ from those who have not gone to college can be from any number of things- different levels of affluence, connections with family, breadth of travel or reading, or a hundred factors.
To believe there's a rubber-stamp description that can be applied to those poor, pitiable college student minds- whether that belief comes from a professor or elsewhere- is the sheerest arrogance of someone who luxuriates in believeing they already have the answers everyone needs to know.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, my dad went to CSU. I spent the first three years of my life in Fort Collins/Northglen. One of my earliest memories is looking out the window at Horsetooth Mountain.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, Scott? Fort Collins is beautiful, as is most of Colorado.
Sam, I don't know why I respond to you,since you are such an a**hole, probably full of self-loathing, (since we're bandying about insulting assumptions), but I'm wondering, but why the (sic) in your post? Who were you talking to?
Threads: "Two people can share the exact same viewpoints yet still one may be open-minded and the other one close-minded."
That's a good point. How does one determine whether someone is one or the other? What I've been doing is assuming that since it is highly unlikely that an 18 year-old living on Daddy's paycheck could possibly have it all figured out yet, especially when talking about things they have no first-hand experience about, and they refuse to tolerate any dissenting opinions, I usually assign said person the status of being closed-minded (is that what you meant, Sam?)
I imagine they (and you, perhaps? going by your reference to my stance on evolution) assume someone is closed-minded because they disagree with you.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really, really hate the idea of just making assumptions. It doesn't have a thing to do with actually LEARNING about people and situations. It's just accepting easy answers. That's a bit lazy. I went to college years ago and never felt the need to get passing out drunk and I didn't get an extreme amount of help from parents and relatives. All people are different. I really don't see what is wrong with being concerned about the larger world. A friend of mine who I met in college has been to India on several occasions. She is concerned with the plight of Tibetans, she studies wolves out west. Another friend is in Africa. What's the problem with that? There are bond to be some college students with an understanding of things. It's unfair to dismiss them all as inexperienced.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It gets to the same point. I think that is the implication of the no brains/head brain thing I heard.
