Please don't tell me they look "black" to you. And if you consider them as turks then how come they existed in Egypt as assimilated Egyptians already during the middle kingdom and also found during the old kingdom, wasn't your "magical turk" assertion based on the hypothesis that turks (current population of arabian peninsula, anatolia, levant and Maghreb) arrived from the steppes and killed all "blacks" in north-africa, minor asia and the levant during the 19th century?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis2 - For a veteran poster your scholarship is disappointing. Couldn't you have a least identified the source and dates for these masks. You better that I, know how many fakes are floating around out there.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
So, explain the reason these so-called "turks" existed outside the asian steppes and were assimilated Egyptians as far back as the old kingdom?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please don't tell me they look "black" to you.
You really need to leave the khat alone. I see "black" americans who look like those ancient egyptians everyday.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis2 - You poor dense Somalis. Source means WHO has it, so that someone like me can go and see for themselves whether or not it is authentic - because as you well know, there are lots of fakes out there.
Owning to your poor scholarship, I was forced to search for it myself. I only did one; Here is what I found....
This one was at TourEgypt - a TURKISH site.
It is identified as "Funerary mask of a non-royal person" no date given. Note; it does NOT claim that the person is Egyptian.
Here are the problems with the mask.
The person has a FULL Beard and MUSTACHE - NOT Egyptian!!
Also - The person has the FAKE Goatee of an Egyptian KING - as you know, the penalty for that, would have likely been DEATH - even if they had to bring him back to life to kill him!
BTW - My poor Somalis friend - How could they be Turks, when Turks didn't enter the West until about 800 A.D.?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis you are wasting your time trying to reason with these extremists. Just put them on blast. This as*hole Mike's best retort is to come back with some lame strawman. Instead of dealing with the relic, he resorts to "a Turkish site" bullish excuse. What the fcuk does that have to do with the relic?
-------------------- A recovering Afronut Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
Touregypt is just chock full of bullsh1t. I once read an article there about the reason that Egyptian Men were painted Red and the Women White, was because the Women stayed inside while the Men worked out in the Sun - sounds like something you guys would come up with. He, he.
Now try understanding the things that are wrong with the mask - idiot!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My my my... look at what we have here, a numbnut Afroturd. Did you not take up a course in research method in college? What does Touregypt have to do with the relic (source)? If you have an issue with the relic, then disprove it. Otherwise, your feeble strawman attempt ain't hacking it. Touregypt is a hosting site, ahole.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Afroidiot - Didn't yo mama tell you...
Always consider the source!
Touregypt is just chock full of bullsh1t. I once read an article there about the reason that Egyptian Men were painted Red and the Women White, was because the Women stayed inside while the Men worked out in the Sun - sounds like something you guys would come up with. He, he.
Now try understanding the things that are wrong with the mask - idiot!
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Yonis2 wrote:
quote: Please don't tell me they look "black" to you.
You really need to leave the khat alone. I see "black" americans who look like those ancient egyptians everyday.
do you realise african-americans are from west and south africa right? and the ones you think look like AE are most likely directly or generally mixed.
africa is not one country with one unified look, race and culture.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
It is identified as "Funerary mask of a non-royal person" no date given. Note; it does NOT claim that the person is Egyptian.
Here are the problems with the mask.
The person has a FULL Beard and MUSTACHE - NOT Egyptian!!
Also - The person has the FAKE Goatee of an Egyptian KING - as you know, the penalty for that, would have likely been DEATH - even if they had to bring him back to life to kill him!
BTW - My poor Somalis friend - How could they be Turks, when Turks didn't enter the West until about 800 A.D.?
Afroidiot - Is the problem that you can't READ???
Damn Boy - You sure are Stupid!!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow that right there is a fake for sure man...it's fake in every way.AE didn't make statues that look like that at all and it is a very ugly depiction of a Turk trying to be a pharaoh king LAMO They never give there statues mustaches .. How can someone say that this is a real statue of anyone beats me.
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Interesting observation there; while it is not unusual to see pharaohs depicted with the "divine" goatee, beards as such, are a very rare sight. The only other well known figure that sported facial hair other than the usual pseudo "goatee", is Ra-Hotep's large sculpture...but even that was put to question by Prof. Ampim.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: ^^ Alright, the first one is from dynasty 6, old kingdom, 2330 B.C, sakkara.
Second is from late dynasty 11, 1926 B.C. middle kingdom, discovered in Deir el-Bersh necropolis.
Mask of the lady comes from 18th dynasty, 1570 B.C.–1300 B.C., old kingdom, Thebes.
Last one is from dynasty 11 1990 B.C. middle kingdom, found in Thebes.
LOL!!! No wonder Mike called you a dense f!ucking Somali. Is that how you source a claim Yonis? LOL!!!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
That statue of Ra-Hoteps is just like these and a few others.I have came across most likely there fakes of the last dynasty or 3rd or last dynasty created to put or current day to put some disbelief in .What some people know and to give them self the right to say there Egyptians(Which there not).Ra-Hoteps statue...when artist of ae depicted there king's and or people in power they had very strict rules and you can see it in every statue and common sense will all so tell you that Hoteps Statue is a fake (Because there are other Statues of him and they look nothing like that and symbols are in the wrong place's and so are ancient costumes in they why they show him)and the same can be said for these.
So any person with some simple common sense and a little research would no .That these are not in fact Egyptians but either fakes or late end of the Egyptians rule statues not depicting real people in power and depicting invader's rules (Also doing a bad job of following the rules of the real Kemet or Egyptians Artist)..
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey bring some facts to the table and we can talk...You should be able to look at these and see that there fake..based on other statues of Ancient Kemet or Egyptians deceptions there is no false fact in what i say .That these statues are fake and don't follow the rules of the ancient artists as you should know MR.Slayer..if you indeed are a smart human being with eyes and common sense (Which i hope you do because i hope you were not born in this world to start problems and call people names and be a bigot but to be a person of true and no fact from fiction and not be blinded by others in there own racist agenda).Because anyone with a brain and or a soul would see who those people are and were and they were .Native Africans in the being and after year's of invaders change over time and that should be it but know .People have there agenda for what ever reason to distort everything and belittle Native Africans(Modern Humans) from there rightful place.By means of brainwashing and mistreatment and changing mindsets of those who came first to fit there sad little group mind game's.
But because i try to and many others defend whats theirs by blood .In which in a place called African (Mother Land)were there were many kingdoms and many King's and Queens that came before there other counter parts later on.But because of that those like me and others(Figuring out the Truth)are label>>>Afro nut,Afrocentric and many others.
But Afrocentric does have it's problems(and i know what they are)but it's just a offspring to Eurocentric and that has an agenda.In distorting history no matter what the cost to make them self feel better which they have been doing for a LONG TIME...
So what kind of person I'm i ill tell you in two word's COMMON SENSE..
Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: do you realise african-americans are from west and south africa right? and the ones you think look like AE are most likely directly or generally mixed.
The below destroys what little credibility you had, which wasn't much to begin with anyway. You should never put your stupidity on public display.
-------------------------------- A marvelous chapter, entitled "Private Deals," tells of the smugglers and buccaneers who, in defiance of mercantilist restrictions, pioneered the American routes, carrying East African slaves and other booty to the Bermudas and New York. --------------------------------
posted
horn-afrik, here is more exposition of your stupidity.
------------------------------------ "it is important to note that slaves were taken from as far as Mt. Kenya in East Africa. In 1961(Western calendar) when a delegation of Jamaicans visited Ethiopia, they were told by the late Abuna Basillos that the people were taken from Ethiopia and brought to the Western world centuries ago." ------------------------------------
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice observations on the fakery, it is a shame that they resort to this type of thing
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: ^^ Alright, the first one is from dynasty 6, old kingdom, 2330 B.C, sakkara.
Second is from late dynasty 11, 1926 B.C. middle kingdom, discovered in Deir el-Bersh necropolis.
Mask of the lady comes from 18th dynasty, 1570 B.C.–1300 B.C., old kingdom, Thebes.
Last one is from dynasty 11 1990 B.C. middle kingdom, found in Thebes.
LOL!!! No wonder Mike called you a dense f!ucking Somali. Is that how you source a claim Yonis? LOL!!!
Read his post, he asked for "date" and source, i provided the dates didn't bother with the source.
How old are you btw? For your own sake i hope you are under 20, your juvenile antics reeks of mental immaturity, maybe high time to reconsider ending your life if you happen to be older than 20, just an honest advice.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Nice observations on the fakery, it is a shame that they resort to this type of thing
They might be fake, but untill someone in the field bothers to discredit them with solid evidence, then they will continue to be viewed as belonging to the AE periods of the old and middle kingdom.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are they fake? To be officially determined. But do they exhibit artistic features that are inconsistent with ancient Egyptian conventions which are otherwise generally consistent through much of the dynastic era? A case can be made for that.
BTW, not sure what is wrong with the 3rd item down, of the intro-post, other than that it appears that its original painting had been peeling off or wearing out.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: horn-afrik wrote:
quote: do you realise african-americans are from west and south africa right? and the ones you think look like AE are most likely directly or generally mixed.
The below destroys what little credibility you had, which wasn't much to begin with anyway. You should never put your stupidity on public display.
-------------------------------- A marvelous chapter, entitled "Private Deals," tells of the smugglers and buccaneers who, in defiance of mercantilist restrictions, pioneered the American routes, carrying East African slaves and other booty to the Bermudas and New York. --------------------------------
come on mate no need for name calling, you better than that, we can discuss in civilised manner.
there is no denying that slaves were taking from the east african coast, but there not of cushitic stock (ethiopin and somalia). Infact they themselves were traders with arab world.
" The Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia often exported Nilotic slaves from their western borderland provinces.[68] The Somali and Afar Muslim sultanates, such as the Adal Sultanate, exported slaves as well.[69] Arabs also set up slave-trading posts along the southeastern coast of the Indian Ocean, most notably in the archipelago of Zanzibar, along the coast of present-day Tanzania. East Africa and the Indian Ocean continued as an important region for the Oriental slave trade up until the 19th century. Livingstone and Stanley were then the first Europeans to penetrate to the interior of the Congo basin and to discover the scale of slavery there. The Arab Tippu Tip extended his influence and made many people slaves. After Europeans had settled in the Gulf of Guinea, the trans-Saharan slave trade became less important. In Zanzibar, slavery was abolished late, in 1897, under Sultan Hamoud bin Mohammed."
"Historians know less about the sea routes. From the evidence of illustrated documents, and travellers' tales, it seems that people travelled on dhows or jalbas, Arab ships which were used as transport in the Red Sea. Crossing the Indian Ocean required better organisation and more resources than overland transport. Ships coming from Zanzibar made stops on Socotra or at Aden before heading to the Persian Gulf or to India. Slaves were sold as far away as India, or even China: there was a colony of Arab merchants in Canton. Serge Bil� cites a 12th century text which tells us that most well-to-do families in Canton had black slaves whom they regarded as savages and demons because of their physical appearance. Although Chinese slave traders bought slaves (Hei-hsiao-ssu) from Arab intermediaries and "stocked up" directly in coastal areas of present-day Somalia, the local Somalis -- no strangers to owning and trading slaves themselves[56] -- were not among them:" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=83c_1211490433
"The Bantus are the descendants of people from various ethnic groups in what is modern-day Tanzania, Malawi and Mozambique who were brought to Somalia as slaves in the 19th century. It is estimated that the Bantu in Somalia number around 600,000 out of a total population of over 11 million. Contrary to the Somali, who are for the most part nomadic herders, the Bantu are mainly sedentary farmers. Bantus have darker skin and are shorter and more muscular with broader features and kinkier hair than the Somalis.[19]
I can provide more inframtion and links on this issue but they would be in arabic and amharic.
On a side note, horn africans would make terrible slaves, as they are very Convertational and physically frail, so it is economically sound to have them as manual workers.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
Folks, this is another example of people who would rather deal with race fantasy and not historical facts.
I just gave him historical evidence and he comes back claiming the race loonery as it was the so called "bantus" that were slaves.
You don't run a business or are not in an upper management position. I can tell because you don't like facts and would rather engage in fictional fantasy.
I guess the below isn't true either and I guess you will say those are not your so called cushitic bretheren.
posted
What is also noticeable about people such as Yonis, horn-afrik and other pseudoscience race loons is the amount of fiction they engage in.
They believe in racial taxonomy and based upon the so called hierarchy of groups their is this lunatic association of characteristics.
We are to believe that so called "west", "central", and "southern" Africans are the Africans who drive cabs and work at parking lot stations, while so called "horn" Africans are collage professors, engineers, information technology professionals, accountants, financiars, stock brokers, and bankers.
We are to believe that people who can't even feed themselves are able to make journeys to the lands of those who can and make slaves of them.
We are to believe that people who have the frame of a person who plays professional basketball could make slaves of people who have the build of someone who plays professional football.
Again this illustrates that internet forums mostly consists of those who are not scholarly and whose postings consists of feel good racial pseudofiction.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am really done here, I have provided hard evidence and yet you decided to ignored it and call me names yet again. have a gd day mate
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Nice observations on the fakery, it is a shame that they resort to this type of thing
They might be fake, but untill someone in the field bothers to discredit them with solid evidence, then they will continue to be viewed as belonging to the AE periods of the old and middle kingdom.
Yonis2 - My poor boy, aren't you really saying: "When some WHITE person bothers to discredit them with solid evidence".
Does that really make sense to you? After all, isn't it WHITE people who perpetuate the lies in the first place? Silly boy.
And secondly; As a proud (though rather dense) Black-assed Somalis, doesn't the discrediting done by Black scholars count?
I mean, after all, the Black scholars have evidence on their side - for instance....
In Egypt, people there believed that body hair was shameful and unclean. Wild animals and barbarian people had hair, not the sophisticated, super-advanced Egyptian civilization.
Being hairless was accomplished by shaving, or using depilatory creams, and even rubbing one’s hair off with a pumice stone. Men, women, and even the children of ancient Egypt, all shaved their heads bald and wore elaborate specially-made wigs. These wigs were made of natural or artificial hair, and were specially designed to keep one’s head cool.
So common sense would tell you that a mask just FULL of facial hair couldn't be Egyptian.
But yet, for all the work I do to help knuckleheads like you achieve enlightenment, do I get any thanks? - NO.
But at least tell me - Who's your Daddy?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL The poor little Somali black boy, who is proud of his country's fighting spirit against white colonials, is waiting for said white colonials to confirm or discredit data for him. No wonder he cant source the damn thing, probably got it from his favorite stormfront. LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am really done here, I have provided hard evidence and yet you decided to ignored it and call me names yet again. have a gd day mate
You've decided you are done because you can't refute the historical facts.
You also cannot refute my commonsense rebuttals.
You are losing the battle logically and analytically.
You tried to argue by way of the pseudoscience and its accompanying pseudohistory you picked up from the race loon forums. Now you're beating a hasty retreat when someone counters your opinions that are not based on facts, with historical references and plain commonsense, logic, and analysis.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
horn-afrik why don't you explain why "you" believe so called cushitics were not used as slaves.
What is it about them that is more special than Europeans, Iranians, Arabs, people from the levant, Turks, South Asians, East Asians, Native Americans, and other Africans that so called "cushitics" would not be slaves and they were?
Oh, let me guess since you are a pseudoscience loon, you believe that only so called "negroes", "subsaharan Africans", or "bantus" were slaves. Because in your race loon forum mind those other non-African groups higher up on the racial hierarchy tree than cushitics.
Therefore you are forced, if not volunarily believe that those groups as well were not slaves.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis2 - Not meaning to pile it on; But you should NEVER doubt me - the punishment is embarrassment!
Concerning that bogus mask..
Here is what it says on another page at Touregypt.
Quote; A plaster mold, apparently taken directly from the face of a corpse, was excavated from the 6th Dynasty mortuary temple of Teti, though unfortunately, this is thought to date to the Greco-Roman period. (that's the White period - in case you didn't know it).
You don't have to take my word for it - here is the link.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: horn-afrik why don't you explain why "you" believe so called cushitics were not used as slaves.
What is it about them that is more special than Europeans, Iranians, Arabs, people from the levant, Turks, South Asians, East Asians, Native Americans, and other Africans that so called "cushitics" would not be slaves and they were?
Oh, let me guess since you are a pseudoscience loon, you believe that only so called "negroes", "subsaharan Africans", or "bantus" were slaves. Because in your race loon forum mind those other non-African groups higher up on the racial hierarchy tree than cushitics.
Therefore you are forced, if not volunarily believe that those groups as well were not slaves.
nothing is especial about us, we are like the rest of man-kind. come on dude enough with the insults, grow up.
read these three articles, we fought on sides north and south, simple as that
posted
Of course there is nothing special about you, I've already shown that in my previous posts in this thread regarding supposed cushitics.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another problem that horn-afrik has is the commonsense factor.
Let us play horn-afrik's game and disregard the historical facts that have been provided regarding exportation of "cushitic" Somalis and Ethiopians as slaves.
horn-afrik, how do you explain the below:
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Another problem that horn-afrik has is the commonsense factor.
Let us play play horn-afrik's game and disregard the historical facts that have been provided regarding exportation of "cushitic" Somalis and Ethiopians as slaves.
posted
horn-afrik once again how is it you expect us to believe the people below were brought to the new world but not so called "cushitics" from the horn.
------------------------------ History of Bermuda
"In 1509, the Portuguese started to trade Arabian slaves because aside from ridding from those people, they also gained profit." ------------------------------
Folks this is why nutrition is important. horn-afrik is from an area and people group that rarely enjoys a good square meal and his intelligence is suffering because of it.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
horn-afrik your method of operation is to divide ethnicities into groups according to how much you believe they resemble Europeans. That is a sick thing to do on your part considering the fact that Europeans killed so many of your "cushitic" people by conquering them and the subsequent occupation of their land(s).
Once you divide people through your bogus pseudoscience loon taxonomy, you then create pseudohistory for each of the groups according to how much you believe they resemble Europeans.
Its a stupid thing to do on your part because these pseudohistories are easily debunked.
See below and please make an attempt to explain it away if you dare.
------------------------------------------- "Turnbull and his group, made up of adventurers, indentured servants and slaves from Spain, Italy and Greece, landed in what is now New Smyrna Beach in 1768." -------------------------------------------
quote: do you realise african-americans are from west and south africa right?
The how do you explain this?
quote: A marvelous chapter, entitled "Private Deals," tells of the smugglers and buccaneers who, in defiance of mercantilist restrictions, pioneered the American routes, carrying East African slaves and other booty to the Bermudas and New York.
You're looking more and more like a know nothing illiterate. This was found with a mere internet search. This means that you are either not a scholarly intelligent person or you are loon who hates facts that disrupt his race fantasy dogma.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing noticeable is how people try to claim "cushitics" were not slaves because many were muslim.
It is the year 2009 and muslims have no problem bombing fellow muslims or killing fellow muslims in other ways. There are even honor killings of family members.
Given these facts one has to be a complete moron to think that being a muslim would prevent another muslim from him/her off into slavery.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I know the content in that thread made people very uncomfortable since it blew a hole in their ship named "race mythology-fantasy-dogma". This was evident by how the thread abruptly ended when the accepted mainstream pseudohistory was literally demolished.
Therefore, anyone can feel free to "try" and refute any of abdulkarem3's historical and pictorial facts in that thread.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Yonis2 wrote:
quote: Please don't tell me they look "black" to you.
You really need to leave the khat alone. I see "black" americans who look like those ancient egyptians everyday.
do you realise african-americans are from west and south africa right? and the ones you think look like AE are most likely directly or generally mixed.
africa is not one country with one unified look, race and culture.
I always laugh when i see Horn Africans say this. They always insinuate that it must be because of the 'Mixture' found in Americans that they can and do look similar to East Africans, Saharans or North Africans. It is NEVER because of the fact that they "AFRICANS" that they look like other Africans.
When i am in East Africa, I fit right in (until i speak), it isn't because i am mixed either. Its because i am a Negro surrounded by other Negroes.
I would like to see a picture of You and Yonis. Many times the Horners that speak about some special phenotype of Horners don't have that phenotype themselves.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
They need to believe in pseudoscience and with pseudoscience it is necessary to create pseudohistory.
Therefore they need to believe that the only people that were slaves in both the new world and old world were the mythical so called "bantus", "subsaharans", "negroids", "west" Africans, "central" Africans.
And as you can see, I have obliterated his numbskull non-historical, non-factual fantasy.
Notice how race loonery has to keep changing to different terms to keep feeble minds off balance so they can keep their lies propagated.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Yonis2 - Not meaning to pile it on; But you should NEVER doubt me - the punishment is embarrassment!
Concerning that bogus mask..
Here is what it says on another page at Touregypt.
Quote; A plaster mold, apparently taken directly from the face of a corpse, was excavated from the 6th Dynasty mortuary temple of Teti, though unfortunately, this is thought to date to the Greco-Roman period. (that's the White period - in case you didn't know it).
You don't have to take my word for it - here is the link.
Try to be consistant you little confused revisionist. The real purpose of this thread was to show that your "turks" are not new commers in SE Europe, levant and North africa. So if the masks are from the greco-roman period which was during the last B.C. centuries preceeding the first millenia and those right after, then my point still stands valid since you consider these people as belonging to "the White period" which contradicts what you said earlier.
Mike quote "How could they be Turks, when Turks didn't enter the West until about 800 A.D.?
Maybe now you're going to tell me the greco-roman period was in reality during the 18th century, waay after the turks entered west during 800 A.D.? You yourself seem to fail keeping up with the nonsens you daily spew here.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:astenb wrote: I would like to see a picture of You and Yonis. Many times the Horners that speak about some special phenotype of Horners don't have that phenotype themselves.
And how does this "special phenotype" look like that you don't see in those that speak of it, please enlighten me?
Also be kind to remind me exactly where i speak of this "special phenotype", thank you?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: astenb you want to know who Yonis the Somali looks like.
Look at Barry Bonds from his Pittsburgh Pirates days. They look like twins.
Hey herpes boy, why don't you go and suck on barry bonds balls you little imbecile and get the fock out of this thread with your slave obsessed sad life of yours.----> Exit!
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic