An OOC discussion about Jamahiriya

[Edifice]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291705456' post='2532732']
Well, I guess that's the difficult part... where does crusading against the people depicted stop being IC and begin being OOC? That is what I struggled with originally.

I also want to stress again that I am not trying to moderate this alliance out of existence, simply asking some questions in the only forum I think they can go.

Ironically, MvP was one of the best people who ever sold me tech and I enjoyed doing business with him, and I know he brings a lot to this game for a lot of people. I have no urge to see that disappear.
[/quote]

I think it becomes OOC when you start to crusade against them for OOC reasons [i]outside of the OOC they already bring into the game themselves.[/i] So in this instance, I would be fine if people attacked Jamawhatever for being a Muslim alliance--they make no secret of it in their DOE, and there is no reason to believe that all people wearing the Jama AA will necessarily be of the Islamic faith in real life.

It becomes OOC when you start looking into the player's actual lives and basing your reasons there. I think the most obvious example is the NoV/NoR stuff.

Healthy IC crusading: the conflict between NoV/NoR and the communists--based entirely on ideologies that both sides brought into the game voluntarily. It wasn't really about whether the players behind the nations were actual communists or fascists.

Questionable/Bad IC crusading: NoV/NoR and TPF. TPF attacks NoV accusing the players of being Nazis in real life, drawing on RL evidence, under the justification that it is better OOC for the game.

I don't think I'm being too clear, it's more of a "I'll know it when I see it" thing.

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1291706412' post='2532749']
Oh well, it's at least more reasoned and tolerant than some words I've seen leveled against him, but really, talking to him in private is a much better way to hash out little issues like this.
[/quote]

I specifically did not approach him privately because I know it is not just myself who feels this way but many members of the community, and I wanted to give all the opportunity to air their opinions.

That said, I appreciate all those who have stuck to the matter at hand. I realize it was naive of me not to realize that this topic wouldn't get bogged down with history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and I may have approached this differently if I had.

That said, again, kudos to those who have tried to discuss this solely from the point of view of the game.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1291705466' post='2532733']
The land was in use by muslims when it was given to the jews, as it had been their territory for a while. I think the entire jewish argument on why they were right to take it was because they had it during biblical times, but all those people were long dead with no legit claim to the land when the Allies in WW2 decided to pass the territory over to the jews and relocate/remove the muslims living there. But the biblical times argument is pretty much how the jews convinced everyone to give them Israel and why so many of them actually moved there.
[/quote]
Partly true.

After the Roman Empire sacked the last city in the defunct Jewish Kingdom in 70 AD, the Jews for the most part scattered throughout the world. Some went to form the Cathar Kingdom in central asia/Europe, others went to europe to try their lives there, but some stayed, and continued to live in peace with their neighbors. When the Holy Prophet Muhammad (may Glory and Peace be upon him) met the angel Gabriel and founded the true religion of Islam the Arabs unified and expanded out of Arabia and took over fast swabs of territory in the middle east. the Romans fell and the Byzantine Empire took over mandate of the middle east, but the Arabs took land from them, and from that point onward until 1917 that land was run by Muslims. When the Muslims were in control they had no problem sharing land with the Jews, as long as the Jews paid their "Jew" tax, and were not in control or in power.

Funny how nobody criticises France for the creation of Lebanon and Syria, nor Britain for the creation of Jordan, which were all done with the spoils of war France and the UK received from a defeated Ottoman Empire after World War 1, yet the creation of Israel is blamed on Britain, when in face Britain had no legal mandate then, and had in fact given over its mandate to the United Nations. Funny how the Muslims were fine when it was a small non muslim minority living next to them for a thousand years, but when the non muslims began to reach muslim levels thats when the problems started.

to adress your point bluntly, there are Jews whose family has lived continuosly in the region of modern day Israel since the fall of the Jewish Kingdom before the modern age.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Edifice' timestamp='1291706438' post='2532750']
I think it becomes OOC when you start to crusade against them for OOC reasons [i]outside of the OOC they already bring into the game themselves.[/i] So in this instance, I would be fine if people attacked Jamawhatever for being a Muslim alliance--they make no secret of it in their DOE, and there is no reason to believe that all people wearing the Jama AA will necessarily be of the Islamic faith in real life.

It becomes OOC when you start looking into the player's actual lives and basing your reasons there. I think the most obvious example is the NoV/NoR stuff.

Healthy IC crusading: the conflict between NoV/NoR and the communists--based entirely on ideologies that both sides brought into the game voluntarily. It wasn't really about whether the players behind the nations were actual communists or fascists.

Questionable/Bad IC crusading: NoV/NoR and TPF. TPF attacks NoV accusing the players of being Nazis in real life, drawing on RL evidence, under the justification that it is better OOC for the game.

I don't think I'm being too clear, it's more of a "I'll know it when I see it" thing.
[/quote]
I agree with you on what would good and bad IC crusading, someone can roleplay a nazi, communist, totalitarian or muslim nation without actually being one. Some people prefer playing as the Nazis rather than Allies in WW2 games because they think the Nazis are more stylish in their uniforms and like playing the bad guy. I don't see reason people wouldn't make nations themed towards muslim, american, israeli, north korean style communism or soviet style communism even if that isn't what they believe in real life. When people start stalking people OOC to find out if they are OOC a nazi or communist, then if youattack based on that you're going to far. If someone states themselves as something in-game I think using it as reason to attack wouldn't be OOC, as thats what they are in character/in-game. People's real lives shouldn't factor into it though, this is only a game after all where people can pretend to be whatever they want for the hell of it.

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1291706876' post='2532760']
Partly true.

After the Roman Empire sacked the last city in the defunct Jewish Kingdom in 70 AD, the Jews for the most part scattered throughout the world. Some went to form the Cathar Kingdom in central asia/Europe, others went to europe to try their lives there, but some stayed, and continued to live in peace with their neighbors. When the Holy Prophet Muhammad (may Glory and Peace be upon him) met the angel Gabriel and founded the true religion of Islam the Arabs unified and expanded out of Arabia and took over fast swabs of territory in the middle east. the Romans fell and the Byzantine Empire took over mandate of the middle east, but the Arabs took land from them, and from that point onward until 1917 that land was run by Muslims. When the Muslims were in control they had no problem sharing land with the Jews, as long as the Jews paid their "Jew" tax, and were not in control or in power.

Funny how nobody criticises France for the creation of Lebanon and Syria, nor Britain for the creation of Jordan, which were all done with the spoils of war France and the UK received from a defeated Ottoman Empire after World War 1, yet the creation of Israel is blamed on Britain, when in face Britain had no legal mandate then, and had in fact given over its mandate to the United Nations. Funny how the Muslims were fine when it was a small non muslim minority living next to them for a thousand years, but when the non muslims began to reach muslim levels thats when the problems started.

to adress your point bluntly, there are Jews whose family has lived continuosly in the region of modern day Israel since the fall of the Jewish Kingdom before the modern age.
[/quote]
I think you're mistaking my lack of depth on the issue as me trying to distort the truth, I don't dislike Israel or think muslims are right to attack jews unless its in direct self defense. I think Israel established themselves in a bad location and are a huge tax drain on the USA when we shouldn't be pouring that kind of money into any other nations. Is the USA the puppet of Israel or is Israel our puppet is the thought that comes to mind?. If they are our puppet I don't think we need to be wasting billions to establish puppet nations and empires in places we're not wanted. If they aren't our puppet nation that does as we say, its very foolish that the USA is bankrupting and over taxes its citizens so we can build up this other nation when our own economy is collapsing and government in debt. I think the idea of creating their nation in hostile land and continue wasting money there was an incredibly stupid decision that we are still suffering the consequences from. The intention of my posts were that both sides are at fault partly, but I didn't see a need to point out what muslims have done to become disliked so much.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Methrage

[Locke]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291706589' post='2532754']
I specifically did not approach him privately because I know it is not just myself who feels this way but many members of the community, and I wanted to give all the opportunity to air their opinions.

That said, I appreciate all those who have stuck to the matter at hand. I realize it was naive of me not to realize that this topic wouldn't get bogged down with history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and I may have approached this differently if I had.

That said, again, kudos to those who have tried to discuss this solely from the point of view of the game.
[/quote]
Those members who want to "air their opinions" prefer to do so in places away from here where they can act with relative impunity and act to whatever disgusting degree they like. I don't want to fight his battles for him when possible, so I'll let him respond to your points on his own terms, but just know that you are among some rather unpleasant company, some of which I have or will take action against. It's really not something I can discuss here, but if you look me up on IRC I can speak more frankly.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291706589' post='2532754']
I specifically did not approach him privately because I know it is not just myself who feels this way but many members of the community, and I wanted to give all the opportunity to air their opinions.

That said, I appreciate all those who have stuck to the matter at hand. I realize it was naive of me not to realize that this topic wouldn't get bogged down with history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and I may have approached this differently if I had.

That said, again, kudos to those who have tried to discuss this solely from the point of view of the game.
[/quote]

My apologies, Kev.

Lets discuss the Israeli-Palestine conflict and history here,

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=95450


and leave the in game discussion here.

[Rudolph]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1291705891' post='2532738']
If Jama has no right to be around, neither do LSF, NoR or Int. It's either or, and I choose the former. I'm a-okay with the OOC alliances rocking around. Not my preference, but it adds color.
[/quote]
Going to have to agree with Xiphosis with this one. And as Locke has stated previously, get to know the leaders of JAMA before anything else. It's nice to get a reality perspective with an alliance one might be originally cautious because of either reputation or past imagery posted under it's name.

[Karolina]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1291703664' post='2532709']were the russians really so evil in the 80's? were the afghan "freedom fighters" in the 80's really that amazing and heroic? Reality is no...[/quote]

Absolutely correct. We were invited into Afghanistan to protect the Communist Government. Weren't thrilled about the idea to start with.

[Uralica]

A few things I agree with here:

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1291705891' post='2532738']
If Jama has no right to be around, neither do LSF, NoR or Int.
[/quote][quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1291706210' post='2532744']
Anyhow, I personally see no reason as to why Jama should not be allowed to exist if alliances like the CCC are.
[/quote]

As an ex-CCCer myself, I would tend to agree. Actually, after a bit of a shaky start, CCC and the first JAMA actually ended up getting along quite well.

Also, an A-friggin'-men to the "keep OOC crusades out of the game" sentiment. The whole NoV-Continuum thing made me sick to my stomach, especially when two alliances were forced to disband because of a bunch of dirt-digging.

[Michael von Prussia]

I'm far too lazy to go through evey post made in this thread and respond to every point that has been brought up, so I will instead focus on the OP, and give my perspective on it, as a member of the Jamahiriya.

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291702518' post='2532683']
The usage of imagery that glorified those considered by many, many people and countries, to be terrorists was absolutely infuriating. Those of us who argued that that kind of imagery has no place in a game such as this quickly found that it was impossible to make that argument. However, I still believe that that kind of imagery should not be allowed in this place, just as images of other people and groups have been ruled illegal under the confines of this game.
[/quote]
I think there's a strong issue here that just because one country, or person, or a group of countries or people consider any group to be a "terrorist" organization doesn't mean that everyone else does. I don't have to be a member or even a supporter of Hezbollah to say that I don't think they are terrorists. I'd also flip the tables and say that while numerous countries call Hezbollah a terrorist organization, more do not. I am sure to many Palestinians and Lebanese that have been subject to Israeli occupation, Israel as a state is an association of terrorists, while Hezbollah may not be considered such by them. It goes back to that old mantra: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

Also, I'm rather curious: what is your opposition to not only my own, but anyone's usage of "terrorists" in their forum profiles? For example, Lennox presently uses Osama bin Laden in his avatar, yet I've not seen you complain, publicly at least as you have about the Jamahiriya, about his avatar. Perhaps there is a perception, because of my views or the views of the first Jamahiriya's members, that our use of various people's images in our profile indicates we agree with them on everything they've ever done or said. This is not the case (not that I think it would matter with regards to my alliance if it did, as again, OOC is OOC and IC is IC).

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291702518' post='2532683']
Let's turn this around for a moment. If I was to create an alliance called "The West Bank Settlers Society" and throw up images of extremist Jewish leaders, the leadership of West Bank settlers groups, or pictures of bulldozed homes and firebombed mosques, would this be stood for? I do not think so, and I believe that any punishment given to me at that time would be just. I consider this on par with the imagery depicted in the original JAMA's DoE.
[/quote]
Would I agree with you if you did that? No. Would I "like" your alliance? Probably not. However, I'd certainly not criticize you, in an OOC manner, for doing so. Allow us to consider two things. First, there is a difference between OOC and IC, and that difference is there for a reason. This game, and everything about it, exists as a [i]simulation[/i]. Even if you do not participate in national roleplay, everything about it is, by the fact it is not real, a simulation. Now, it is my intention to abide by the IC/OOC divide with regard to the Jamahiriya. A really good example of this is my very membership in it: I am not a Muslim, yet here I am, as a government member in a Muslim alliance. That is the very beauty of roleplay.

Second, let me be very clear: we are not the original Jamahiriya. The first government of the original Jamahiriya lost the alliance a lot of credibility not by its formation, but by its dragging the Arab-Israeli conflict into the game. Yes, its detractors, yourself included, were guilty of breaching the IC/OOC divide during its DoE; however, I would not for a minute say that the Jamahiriya's government did not do the exact same thing. Now, I have not brought my politics into the IC realm of the game, and I do not intend to do so.

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291702518' post='2532683']
Now, I realize that the current incarnation of JAMA has refrained from using such imagery, and I applaud them for that. That said, my own personal reason for being suspicious or even disliking this incarnation is due to the rhetoric that the leadership of this alliance uses in its signature. "The existence of Israel is illegal" is a highly inflammatory comment, and while MvP has every right to link to it in his signature, the question is should he?
[/quote]
First, I love how you refer to myself as the sole leadership, and as "it". Secondly, my signature is entirely OOC. It has no relation to the IC views of the alliance, or even to the OOC views of any of the other members. Again, if you disagree with me, that's your right. But please do not bring my real-world politics into the IC realm of the game. I'm not going to, I would hope you would have the decency not to either.

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291702518' post='2532683']
Again, let's pretend I am the leader of the previously mentioned Jewish alliance. Would I be allowed to link to various writings of extremist Israelis calling for the bombardment of Gaza, the imprisonment of Muslims and various other extreme views some Jews hold? Probably. Would it be a good idea, especially in my position as the leader of a controversial alliance? Probably not. Especially if I was trying to prove that I was different from the first version of my alliance.
[/quote]
If you had such views, I would [i]encourage[/i] you to put them in your signature. It's much better when everyone puts their controversial views out in the open, as it very quickly eliminates suspicion as a player in people's interactions. Another old mantra for you: 'I may not agree with what you say, but I would die to protect your right to say it'. I exercise my free speech to the fullest extent everyday, with what my signature says. Why do you think I would not want you to do the same?

[hr]
I must say, Kevin, I'm a bit surprised by the way your attitude has changed. After being so staunchly opposed to the first Jamahiriya when it declared existence, your tune changed from opposition to some sort of neutral indifference when I became President in July 2009. [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63828&view=findpost&p=1702693]A post of yours[/url] made during that announcement went so far as to wish me luck. Yet, when I return several months later, you start by wishing destruction upon my alliance, before crossing that ever-present IC/OOC barrier to post a topic condemning my alliance based on my OOC beliefs. It's disheartening to say the least, especially after the lengthy business relationship we had built in the past.

I'm not going to discuss, or defend, my real-life views that you and I'm sure others in replies have brought up in this topic. It's highly irrelevant to the Jamahiriya, for the very reason that they [i]are[/i] real-life views. The Jamahiriya as an alliance doesn't have any stance with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reason for this is because there isn't an Israel in Cyber Nations, and there isn't a Palestine either, and there isn't a conflict between these two parties that don't exist. It seems silly to say it, but perhaps it has to be done: [i]Cyber Nations is fake.[/i] I don't know how else to put it. If you want to have a civilized discussion about my politics, with no relation to Cyber Nations whatsoever, I can arrange to do so. I'm on IRC everyday, send me a query or pop by #MvPs_Office. But don't bring my alliance into it, and don't bother me about it if you only intend to make trouble. That's called respect: not respect for my politics, but respect for my right to hold the views I do.

[eyriq]

This is actually a pretty good point, though unfortunate. Really if Nazism wasn't so taboo you could state unequivocally that bringing in OOC culture into the game environment is fine, but because of Nazism's unaccepable nature certain other cultural bundles fall under scrutiny as well, to the point where you have to have a sliding scale of acceptableness, leaving issues like this in the gray.

[Sal Paradise]

Absolutely, people with objectionable beliefs should express them and do so frequently. How else would we know they believed them? In fact, I wish MvP expressed his opinions more often. As probably the most visible anti-Israel user here, he is conspicuously absent from most boiler debates on the subject.

Squelching opinion and avoiding debate stem from the same totalitarian thread.

[Ernesto Che Guevara]

I'm not going to read everything that's been written above. I will, however, say this:

I think that OOC alliance such as this one should be allowed to exist. I think that, provided there is no OOC-based hate that makes it's way into the game, it is a health addition to the game. It's when those lines are blurred that my issue comes into play.

Kevin's point about the links in the signature is valid. Does he have the right to put those there? Absolutely. Is it in the best interest of his alliance? Probably not.

Remember, the IQ of the average [ooc] player [/ooc] is about that of a walnut, and when they see things like that, they start to assume that since person X supports cause Y IRL, they must be meaning to drag said cause into this game. Whether or not that's the case, I cannot tell.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1291709434' post='2532786']

Snip

[/quote]

Now don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to either faith or have particularly strong views on the subject, but considering the above, it's kind of silly to say that you aren't projecting that conflict in a thematic way into the game. Your signature is OOC ah? In the same vain, I'm guessing your avatar is as well? Well gee, you've been sporting that ridiculous picture of people burning the Israeli flag for a while up until your DoE. I'm sure you see where someone could make that connection. Not exactly a huge leap.

As for your alliances right to exist, sure, why not. Maybe you have some personal connection with the conflict that is gives you a burning desire to drape it about yourself all over these forums, both in game and out. Maybe your just some medigan who has taken up someone else's cause from an arm chair 1000's of miles away, who knows. In any case, your personal connection or lack thereof is irrelevant, because fact of the matter is you opened the door for judgment in an IC context by using yourself as a billboard then creating an in game alliance whose theme comports with the message you have written on your forehead.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1291711487' post='2532810']
you opened the door for judgment in an IC context by using yourself as a billboard then creating an in game alliance whose theme comports with the message you have written on your forehead.
[/quote]
I'm curious, how does Islam, as a theme in this case, relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict? The original Jamahiriya was an Islamo-socialist alliance, and I could see you saying that for them, since most socialists have critical views of Israel, if not as critical as my own. However, the reformed Jamahiriya has no political philosophy attached to it, so that argument does not apply.

Unless you think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a religious war between Judaism and Islam, the Islamic theme of the Jamahiriya has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. If you [i]do[/i] think it is a religious war, I can only take pity on your ignorance of the conflict.

[Kalasin]

I admit MvP's signature is a bit of a slap in the face for a Zionist like myself. In fact, I set my avatar to the Israeli flag in response to it, to give him a bit of a two-fingered salute. However, in my opinion, he should be allowed to use a signature like that if he wants, and he should be allowed to found a Muslim alliance. I dislike the use of extremist imagery on these forums but fortunately MvP hasn't used anything like that in Jama's reformation. If Jama becomes more extremist in days to come, then obviously my views will harden, and I'll react accordingly.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1291712027' post='2532814']
I'm curious, how does Islam, as a theme in this case, relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict? The original Jamahiriya was an Islamo-socialist alliance, and I could see you saying that for them, since most socialists have critical views of Israel, if not as critical as my own. However, the reformed Jamahiriya has no political philosophy attached to it, so that argument does not apply.

Unless you think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a religious war between Judaism and Islam, the Islamic theme of the Jamahiriya has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. If you [i]do[/i] think it is a religious war, I can only take pity on your ignorance of the conflict.
[/quote]

Once again, goes to themes. You plaster yourself with imagery widely and rightfully identified with an Islamic extremest organization, and claim it is for OOC purposes and in an OOC context. Then, while in your full ceremonial garb, turn around and create an Islamic themed alliance. One rightfully modifies the other in regards to perception. My point is, don't act so shocked (as you did in your long post before) that some people may look down on bringing the theme of that conflict into the game or let the fact that your funneling it here bear on their opinion of you as an individual.

It's like if I were to stick Exxon Mobile bumper stickers all over my body then open a gas station. Any guess as to where I would be getting my fuel?

Edit: And no, of course I don't think its a religious war.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Schattenmann]

I hate Israel and Islam. So, there. I'm a renaissance man [i]of hate.[/i]

MvPreussen is Jewish, which throws a real wrench in all of those and adds a lot of depth to the conversation. If he wants to have an Islam-themed alliance, I really donnnn't care. I didn't buy the NAZI stuff with No[i][b]V[/b][/i], but I wouldn't have cared if they were. I think communists who have had the opportunity to see communism fail for 100 years but still think it will work [i]next time[/i] are drooling retards, but I don't care if they want to start communist alliances. I can't imagine how much crap the Christian Coalition of Countries gets, but if that's their deal, hey why not?

The fulcrum is this: When some guy starts wearing a Hitler avatar and posting swastikas, he's out of line, it's real and it's real bad. If some Islamist starts posting pictures of gay guys getting hanged, stuff just got real. But as of right now, JAMA hasn't gone there afaik. If they've got a unique perspective they want to play from, go for it; it's not like there's that many of us left to offend anyway.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Schattenmann

[malikhera]

We (JAMA) have learn from our past. We have MvP as our government member who is non-muslim. We are open for everyone regarding foreign relation.

Try to maintain the beauty of Cybernations and take role play as roleplay.

[Kalasin]

Wait, MvP's not a Muslim? And he's Jewish???

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1291706876' post='2532760']
....Some went to form the Cathar Kingdom in central asia/Europe
[/quote]
Cathars? They were a Medieval Christian Sect. Unless you mean the [b]Khazars[/b]? If so the Kazars were not Jewish by race, being converts to the faith. The Khazars are largely accepted to have been Turkic in origin and it was only the Royal Family (Khagans) and Aristocracy that converted to Judaism. In addition the Khazars did not appear in recorded history until the 5th century AD, a good deal of time after sacking of Jerusalem.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Cataduanes

[Ernesto Che Guevara]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1291714963' post='2532831']
Wait, MvP's not a Muslim? And he's Jewish???
[/quote]

Oh snap.

[Michael von Prussia]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1291714963' post='2532831']
Wait, MvP's not a Muslim? And he's Jewish???
[/quote]
Ethnically, not religiously.

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1291716059' post='2532835']
Coptic Christian I believe.
[/quote]
Not I The MVP might be, though.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1291716059' post='2532835']
Coptic Christian I believe.
[/quote]

Ah.. fantastic...

Ethnically speaking though?

Edit: seems I was ninja'd.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Kalasin

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1291716307' post='2532838']
Ah.. fantastic...

Ethnically speaking though?
[/quote]
Scrap that I was thinking of MVP not MvP (bloody acronyms)for some reason ...DOH