Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

new report on Russian meddling ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • new report on Russian meddling ...

    Source: cnn


    The Russians focused on turning out conservatives to vote with messaging about gun rights and immigration, according to the Post, and spread misinformation to left-leaning African-American voters about how to vote to and tried to undermine their faith in elections. Many other groups, including Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women, liberals, Southerners and veterans, were also targeted by thousands of social media accounts controlled by Russians, the Post reported.
    "What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the draft of the report obtained by the Post reads. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign."
    "The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting," the report continues, according to the Post.
    The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't announced if it supports the report's findings, but it plans to publicly release the report along with another separate report later this week, the Post reported.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The main report can be found below

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...=.3fdedafe3b85

    Just a little bit more information for those that continually claim there is no 'proof' the Russians were working to help DT get elected.

    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

  • #2
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Source: cnn


    The Russians focused on turning out conservatives to vote with messaging about gun rights and immigration, according to the Post, and spread misinformation to left-leaning African-American voters about how to vote to and tried to undermine their faith in elections. Many other groups, including Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women, liberals, Southerners and veterans, were also targeted by thousands of social media accounts controlled by Russians, the Post reported.
    "What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the draft of the report obtained by the Post reads. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign."
    "The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting," the report continues, according to the Post.
    The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't announced if it supports the report's findings, but it plans to publicly release the report along with another separate report later this week, the Post reported.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The main report can be found below

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...=.3fdedafe3b85

    Just a little bit more information for those that continually claim there is no 'proof' the Russians were working to help DT get elected.

    Jim
    The claim is that there is no proof that Trump agreed to any of this.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Have we moved from "collusion" to "meddling"?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
        Just a little bit more information for those that continually claim there is no 'proof' the Russians were working to help DT get elected.
        Funny how the report left out that these same "Russian trolls" also organized anti-Trump rallies and racked up an impressive number of followers posting anti-Trump messages to Twitter.

        Even anti-Trump Senator Mark Warner of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that "there is no Democratic or Republican ‎answer since clearly the goal of our ‎adversaries was not to favor one party ‎over the other. It was to wreak havoc and ‎split divisions."
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #5
          They appear to have omitted several facts that have been previously report such as it looks like in total they spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the majority coming after the election.

          I think it was Bryon York who did some quick analysis and discovered that these guys spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total[1]. That's equivalent to something like 1 or maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station. And again, not per battleground state but total.

          And for some perspective, when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

          According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

          What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

          So
          • a minuscule amount was spent.
          • the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
          • a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
          • 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
          • and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."


          What's more, on the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (after their publicity stunt indictment blew up in his face when they showed up and he started stammering out a list of excuses why he suddenly didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.


          In case anyone had trouble reading his tweets:

          Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.


          The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.


          The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.


          Goldman later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times (which covered that part), his "unusually candid statement that flouted Facebook’s well-sculpted messaging strategy, which has generally been to stay as far away from partisan debates as possible"[2] -- but not before a couple other Facebook executives, including Andrew Bosworth ("VP AR/VR at Facebook. VP of Ads before that. Co-Invented News Feed, Messenger, Groups, and more" and who has been called one of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s most trusted lieutenants), praised Goldman for what he did, tweeting it was an "Important thread here."



          Finally, for just a bit more context, back during the 2004 race then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct PBS program Inside Washington that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president:

          "Let’s talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points."









          1. In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

          2.Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence. And who can forget how Facebook representatives told Obama’s 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was "on our side" and then grumbled about Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing because it helped Trump.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            They appear to have omitted several facts that have been previously report such as it looks like in total they spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the majority coming after the election.

            I think it was Bryon York who did some quick analysis and discovered that these guys spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total[1]. That's equivalent to something like 1 or maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station. And again, not per battleground state but total.

            And for some perspective, when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

            According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

            What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

            So
            • a minuscule amount was spent.
            • the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
            • a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
            • 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
            • and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."


            What's more, on the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (after their publicity stunt indictment blew up in his face when they showed up and he started stammering out a list of excuses why he suddenly didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]33877[/ATTACH]

            In case anyone had trouble reading his tweets:

            Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.


            The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.


            The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.


            Goldman later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times (which covered that part), his "unusually candid statement that flouted Facebook’s well-sculpted messaging strategy, which has generally been to stay as far away from partisan debates as possible"[2] -- but not before a couple other Facebook executives, including Andrew Bosworth ("VP AR/VR at Facebook. VP of Ads before that. Co-Invented News Feed, Messenger, Groups, and more" and who has been called one of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s most trusted lieutenants), praised Goldman for what he did, tweeting it was an "Important thread here."



            Finally, for just a bit more context, back during the 2004 race then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct PBS program Inside Washington that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president:

            "Let’s talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points."









            1. In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

            2.Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence. And who can forget how Facebook representatives told Obama’s 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was "on our side" and then grumbled about Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing because it helped Trump.
            izcOK4m.gif
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #7




































              GIF snicker.gif

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #9
                  There you are quoting this guy again. This report would show he is wrong.

                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    The claim is that there is no proof that Trump agreed to any of this.
                    There have been several instances over the last month where there have been flat out denials that Russia's interference in our elections was targetted at boosting Trump's overal performance in the election. The claim has been from those supporting trump that the evidence only pointed to general disruption, not to specific goals.

                    Even after I posted a link to a CIA report saying they were aiming their efforts at helping Trump, it was claimed that certain senators on the investigation had concluded the opposite, only that the Russians had tried to disrupt, but without any specific targeted goal other than disruption.

                    THIS report sheds more light on that, with a conclusion that matches that of the original CIA assessment.

                    And that is why I posted it and started a thread on it.

                    In general, the push back has been collusion when there is no evidence the Russians where in fact directly supporting Trump, and calling the CIA report 'old' and superceded by (certain) recent announcements.

                    This report is yet more confirmation they were in fact helping Trump. It doesn't prove Trump directly colluded, but it does kill argument that there could not have been Collusion because the Russians were not
                    actually trying to get Trump elected.

                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
                      This report is yet more confirmation they were in fact helping Trump.
                      Yes, but only if you ignore all the evidence of anti-Trump activities from these same "Russian trolls". Don't you find it just a little suspicious that this report leaves that out?
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        There have been several instances over the last month where there have been flat out denials that Russia's interference in our elections was targetted at boosting Trump's overal performance in the election. The claim has been from those supporting trump that the evidence only pointed to general disruption, not to specific goals.

                        Even after I posted a link to a CIA report saying they were aiming their efforts at helping Trump, it was claimed that certain senators on the investigation had concluded the opposite, only that the Russians had tried to disrupt, but without any specific targeted goal other than disruption.

                        THIS report sheds more light on that, with a conclusion that matches that of the original CIA assessment.

                        And that is why I posted it and started a thread on it.

                        In general, the push back has been collusion when there is no evidence the Russians where in fact directly supporting Trump, and calling the CIA report 'old' and superceded by (certain) recent announcements.

                        This report is yet more confirmation they were in fact helping Trump. It doesn't prove Trump directly colluded, but it does kill argument that there could not have been Collusion because the Russians were not
                        actually trying to get Trump elected.

                        Jim
                        Source: article referenced in OP


                        Lawmakers said the findings “do not necessarily represent the views” of the panel or its members.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Meaning it is an opinion piece, and as Rogue so eloquently demolished, is fraught with over-exaggerations.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Source: article referenced in OP


                          Lawmakers said the findings “do not necessarily represent the views” of the panel or its members.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Meaning it is an opinion piece, and as Rogue so eloquently demolished, is fraught with over-exaggerations.
                          This is not 'an opinion piece'. It was a report:

                          Source: the WP

                          The first report — by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and Graphika, a network analysis firm — offers new details of how Russians working at the Internet Research Agency, which U.S. officials have charged with criminal offenses for interfering in the 2016 campaign, sliced Americans into key interest groups for targeted messaging. These efforts shifted over time, peaking at key political moments, such as presidential debates or party conventions, the report found.

                          The data sets used by the researchers were provided by Facebook, Twitter and Google and covered several years up to mid-2017, when the social media companies cracked down on the known Russian accounts. The report, which also analyzed data separately provided to House Intelligence Committee members, contains no information on more recent political moments, such as November’s midterm elections.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          It is the paragraph after the above that says:

                          Source: WP

                          “What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party — and specifically Donald Trump,” the report says. “Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign. The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting.”

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          The point is, this is a detailed analysis of a large amount of data provided by key internet organizations used by the Russians.

                          Rogue's tirade on funding* is just naive. Cyber operations are generally "Asymmetric Operations" (go look it up). That is - the effect of the operation costs the enemy a great deal more than the operation itself costs the combatant. IOW, what the Russians did was really cost effective for them. It didn't cost them a lot, and what they got was ostensibly the possibility of selecting which American gets elected - one Friendly to Putin, or one openly hostile to him.

                          Jim

                          *I am not here implying that is the full content of Rogue's reply.
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-17-2018, 04:33 PM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            They appear to have omitted several facts that have been previously report such as it looks like in total they spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the majority coming after the election.

                            I think it was Bryon York who did some quick analysis and discovered that these guys spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total[1]. That's equivalent to something like 1 or maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station. And again, not per battleground state but total.

                            And for some perspective, when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

                            According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

                            What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

                            So
                            • a minuscule amount was spent.
                            • the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
                            • a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
                            • 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
                            • and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."


                            What's more, on the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (after their publicity stunt indictment blew up in his face when they showed up and he started stammering out a list of excuses why he suddenly didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]33877[/ATTACH]

                            In case anyone had trouble reading his tweets:

                            Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.


                            The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.


                            The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.


                            Goldman later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times (which covered that part), his "unusually candid statement that flouted Facebook’s well-sculpted messaging strategy, which has generally been to stay as far away from partisan debates as possible"[2] -- but not before a couple other Facebook executives, including Andrew Bosworth ("VP AR/VR at Facebook. VP of Ads before that. Co-Invented News Feed, Messenger, Groups, and more" and who has been called one of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s most trusted lieutenants), praised Goldman for what he did, tweeting it was an "Important thread here."



                            Finally, for just a bit more context, back during the 2004 race then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct PBS program Inside Washington that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president:

                            "Let’s talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points."









                            1. In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

                            2.Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence. And who can forget how Facebook representatives told Obama’s 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was "on our side" and then grumbled about Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing because it helped Trump.
                            This is all old data, old opinions based on weak analysis and small data sets. This is a new, comprehensive report by a research organization. You can't just trot out old opinions, old assessments and assume that lays it to rest.

                            You would have done much better Rogue to have looked at its content and researched it a bit before trotting out your old sources to rebut this thing. You made your Trump loyalists happy. But you'll need a lot more than that in the long run.

                            The real bottom line to this is that Russia's efforts were in fact aimed at hindering Clinton and boosting Trump's success. That is the point of me starting this thread. That is the new bit, the bit that makes a real difference.


                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-17-2018, 04:29 PM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Whatever minimal influence Russia might have had on the election was likely significantly less than the influence the mainstream media had with their excessively negative reporting on Trump and endless puff-pieces about how great President Hillary is going to be.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              106 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              306 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              109 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              196 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              357 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X