Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Noah and his son Ham. What happened?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,588

    Default Noah and his son Ham. What happened?

    An interesting topic came up in my theology class. There are a few verses in Genesis I would like you to turn your attention to.

    And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.


    Gen 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.


    Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:


    Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.


    Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.


    Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.


    Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.


    Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

    Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
    Apparently after the flood had taken place Noah had a successful harvest of grapes. The bible depicts Noahs reaction as shocked and angry. The question is, why was Noah so angry, and why did he place a curse on Ham? Surely there must be something deeper here. The exact reasons are vague, and there is not much detail to work with, so this passage is somewhat of a mystery today. Some scholars say that Noah must have felt disrespected when Ham told his brothers, the assumtion here is that Ham said something along the lines of "Hey look guys, Dad is laying on the floor naked and drunk, hahaha, no more booz for him." Ham may have been cursed for mocking or humilating his father. It makes note that his other brothers were not cursed because they showed compassion by covering him up.

    Other scholars look even deeper. If you look it says Noah was upset "at what he had done." It is believed that Ham may have actually sexually exploited his father. Whether this is intercourse or something as simple as being fondled I am not sure. Also notice that the passage says "And Ham looked upon his father's nakedness." This is somewhat suspicious. The usual reaction when you walk on someone naked is "Ah, good God, my eyes!" you slam the door and walk away. If you walked in on your mom and dad naked, your probably not going to stare and look, that might be the case with younger children because of their innocence, but here it is likely that his sons are grown adults or at least adolescent. So when it says "looked" that has strong sexual implications. Also notice that according to the bible the descendants of Ham make up the population of Sodom and Gomorrah which were both completely destroyed because of homosexual behavior.

    So what happened here? Why is Noah so angry? What were Ham's actions?

    Since how this is such a narrow topic in religous studies, I couldn't find much sources.

    Here is what I did find though.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-Ham-Canaan.html
    Last edited by Ethan; 15th March 2008 at 1:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    Also notice that according to the bible the descendants of Ham make up the population of Sodom and Gomorrah which were both completely destroyed because of homosexual behavior.
    Wrong. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their inhabitants tried to rape two angels who were guests in their demesnes. It was inhospitality.

    Trainer card by Pariah164 (but the Fletcher sprite is mine), and Tringham brothers doll by Yoru Ryu.


    Mod on Bulbagarden Forums | Admin on Bulbapedia

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ketsuban View Post
    Wrong. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their inhabitants tried to rape two angels who were guests in their demesnes. It was inhospitality.
    I suppose this is sarcasm, yes?

    The angels were there to save lot from the city being destroyed. God already had plans for the destruction of the cities prior to the visitation of the angels.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    And the attempt to rape the angels solidified the plans.

    If you'd actually read the Bible, you'd have seen that the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitality, not homosexuality.

    Trainer card by Pariah164 (but the Fletcher sprite is mine), and Tringham brothers doll by Yoru Ryu.


    Mod on Bulbagarden Forums | Admin on Bulbapedia

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,588

    Default

    And the attempt to rape the angels solidified the plans.
    It wouldn't matter if that solidified the plans or not. The fact is God was already going to do this prior to the angels coming.

    If you'd actually read the Bible, you'd have seen that the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitality, not homosexuality.
    You gotta love blanket statements.

    It seems like this is also confirmed in the new testament as well.


    Jude 1:7
    "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange (Greek: different, other) flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
    You cannot show me one Scripture in the entire Bible which even hints that God destroyed Sodom because they weren't cordial and generous to others.

    I have ground to stand on, and that is the bible. You have...oh wait that's right. Nothing. Don't tell me you got your argument from the History channel.

    Oh wait, I'm not finished.


    Genesis 19:12-13
    12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you?
    Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
    God had already SENT them to destroy it. Their mind was obviously already made up.


    Lastly, the Hebrew verb translated as “know” (yada) does indeed possess a wide range of meanings, including “to get to know, to become acquainted.” For the most part, the nuances of the Hebrew verb parallel the corresponding English verb. However, Hebrew, in common with other ancient languages, also used “know” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1; 19:8). Other Semitic euphemisms similarly used include “lie with” (2 Samuel 11:4), “uncover the nakedness of ” (Leviticus 18), “go in unto” (Genesis 16:2; 38:2) and “touch” (Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29; 1 Corinthians 7:1). Ancient languages that shared this figurative use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic , as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek. When Hebrew scholars define “know” as used in Genesis 19:5, they use terminology like “sexual perversion”, “homosexual intercourse” , and “crimes against nature”

    ImJessieTR, I MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSS YOOOOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!
    Last edited by Ethan; 15th March 2008 at 3:31 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon View Post
    You cannot show me one Scripture in the entire Bible which even hints that God destroyed Sodom because they weren't cordial and generous to others.
    Ezekiel 16:49-50?

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon View Post
    Lastly, the Hebrew verb translated as “know” (yada) does indeed possess a wide range of meanings, including “to get to know, to become acquainted.” For the most part, the nuances of the Hebrew verb parallel the corresponding English verb. However, Hebrew, in common with other ancient languages, also used “know” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1; 19:8). Other Semitic euphemisms similarly used include “lie with” (2 Samuel 11:4), “uncover the nakedness of ” (Leviticus 18), “go in unto” (Genesis 16:2; 38:2) and “touch” (Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29; 1 Corinthians 7:1). Ancient languages that shared this figurative use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic , as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek. When Hebrew scholars define “know” as used in Genesis 19:5, they use terminology like “sexual perversion”, “homosexual intercourse” , and “crimes against nature”
    So despite its seemingly apparent meaning of just "have sex", the crime was not an attempt to rape nonhuman creatures (the so-called strange flesh) who were guests in the city (as far as I've read, Lot & co. had been living there for a while at that point; however, the angels had just come), but gay sex?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,588

    Default

    49This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
    What does any of that do with hospitality towards a guest(s)?

    So despite its seemingly apparent meaning of just "have sex", the crime was not an attempt to rape nonhuman creatures (the so-called strange flesh) who were guests in the city (as far as I've read, Lot & co. had been living there for a while at that point; however, the angels had just come), but gay sex?

    Think about it. If “know” means simply “to get acquainted,” why does the Bible repeatedly use forms of the word “wicked” to refer to the actions of the Sodomites? Lot pleaded, “Do not do so wickedly!” (Genesis 19:7, emp. added). Moses, by inspiration, already had given God’s assessment: “But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13); “their sin is very grievous” (Genesis 18:20). Peter referred to the “filthy conduct of the wicked” and their “lawless deeds” (2 Peter 2:7-8). But “getting acquainted” is not “wicked”! In fact, if the men of Sodom were nothing more than a group of friendly, civic-minded neighbors who sought to make the visitors welcome to their city, God surely would have commended them—not condemned them!

    The men of Sodom threatened Lot with the words, “we will deal worse with you than with them” (Genesis 19:9). If their intention was simply to “get to know” the visitors, what would “dealing worse” with Lot entail? Did their threat imply that they would become so thoroughly acquainted with Lot that they perpetually would remain in his presence and make a pest of themselves? Maybe they intended to impose on Lot’s hospitality to the point that they monopolized his house, ate his snack foods, and refused to leave his home at a courteous hour?

    It seems like I got more then I bargained for with this debate.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    into that good night
    Posts
    10,438

    Default

    49This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon
    What does any of that do with hospitality towards a guest(s)?
    Come on, Babylon. Do you disagree that the underlined above is a wonderful description of inhospitability?

    Did their threat imply that they would become so thoroughly acquainted with Lot that they perpetually would remain in his presence and make a pest of themselves? Maybe they intended to impose on Lot’s hospitality to the point that they monopolized his house, ate his snack foods, and refused to leave his home at a courteous hour?
    Lol! Very nice, you're making me want to agree with you.

    By the way, here you have set up a debate in which you can discuss homosexuality in an entirely Biblically defined context. Very sly, Babs. This could be argued as a low blow.

    That also means I won't be able to contribute much. I have no great in-depth analysis of the Bible in my background, nor such a historically-inclined genius as you do. Again, very sly...

    Robin Williams
    1951-2014
    "What's it gonna be? I don't know. But maybe along the way, you take my hand, tell a few jokes, and have some fun. C'mon, pal. You're not afraid, are ya?"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,588

    Default

    Come on, Babylon. Do you disagree that the underlined above is a wonderful description of inhospitability?
    What it is describing is pride and selfishness. You can't show in hospitality to someone you haven't invited into your home, or someone your not even affiliated with.

    Lol! Very nice, you're making me want to agree with you.

    By the way, here you have set up a debate in which you can discuss homosexuality in an entirely Biblically defined context. Very sly, Babs. This could be argued as a low blow.
    Well, eventually I would like to get back to the main point of the discussion, regarding Noah and Ham.

    That also means I won't be able to contribute much. I have no great in-depth analysis of the Bible in my background, nor such a historically-inclined genius as you do. Again, very sly...
    I'm flattered. Your just trying to butter me up, you weasel.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    into that good night
    Posts
    10,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon
    What it is describing is pride and selfishness. You can't show in hospitality to someone you haven't invited into your home, or someone your not even affiliated with.
    It could also be describing inhospitality. Those are all behaviors and thoughts that make up inhospitality. And, you can be inhospitable to anybody, anywhere. It's a behavior, or attitude, and not restricted to the inside of one building.

    I'm flattered. Your just trying to butter me up, you weasel.
    No, I wasn't. I was complaining.

    I never said those traits were good, anyway.

    Robin Williams
    1951-2014
    "What's it gonna be? I don't know. But maybe along the way, you take my hand, tell a few jokes, and have some fun. C'mon, pal. You're not afraid, are ya?"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,588

    Default

    It could also be describing inhospitality. Those are all behaviors and thoughts that make up inhospitality. And, you can be inhospitable to anybody, anywhere. It's a behavior, or attitude, and not restricted to the inside of one building.
    Let's take a look at the verse once more.

    49This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
    Having the traits that make up in hospititality =/= in hospitality.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    993

    Default

    ImJessieTR, I MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSS YOOOOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!
    LOL. I spend more time at Beliefnet.com now (username: Iwantamotto).

    I'm going to ignore the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing. You know, to be on topic, and stuff...

    The key to understanding the story is the name of the Grandson, Canaan. As we recall, Israel no-likey Canaanites. A useful source...

    The only issue I have that wasn't addressed in the article is the idea that it was maybe not Ham's fault at all. I mean, Noah was smashed ... it's perfectly reasonable to think that Noah hit on HAM, sobered up, went "ew" and cursed Canaan because he couldn't admit to his own wrongdoing. I mean, the "Let's take Daddy's power" seems reasonable as well, but in all my searching I've never really come across the suggestion that the curse is a result of "blaming the victim" (or blaming the victim's kid, really).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    462

    Default

    49This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
    Wouldn't it be both inhospitality and homosexual behaviour/bestiality/other sins linked to Sodom, that made God destroy the two cities?
    Last edited by GentleArtillery; 16th March 2008 at 6:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by mimefan View Post
    Oh sorry about that. Well I just think that they're nicer because Gay people don't start wars Straight people do

    Pietrisycamollaviadelrechiotemexity.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon View Post
    What does any of that do with hospitality towards a guest(s)?
    Does not the Bible often illustrate hospitality with people bringing others into their homes, feeding them, washing their feet, and protecting them, essentially making their guests equal to them? And what of the Sodomites: being too proud to let the poor and needy become their equals or greater than them for even a second ("Bring poor people into my home? Wash the feet of those people, putting myself in a position below them? No way!"); being too greedy to feed them, even with excess food; despite being prosperous, being unwilling to share any of it with those who have greater need of it; and presumably not doing any of these things to not only strangers and refugees, but even non-strangers within their borders, therefore not protecting them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon View Post
    Think about it. If “know” means simply “to get acquainted,” why does the Bible repeatedly use forms of the word “wicked” to refer to the actions of the Sodomites? Lot pleaded, “Do not do so wickedly!” (Genesis 19:7, emp. added). Moses, by inspiration, already had given God’s assessment: “But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13); “their sin is very grievous” (Genesis 18:20). Peter referred to the “filthy conduct of the wicked” and their “lawless deeds” (2 Peter 2:7-8). But “getting acquainted” is not “wicked”! In fact, if the men of Sodom were nothing more than a group of friendly, civic-minded neighbors who sought to make the visitors welcome to their city, God surely would have commended them—not condemned them!
    Ok, first, show me where I said or even implied the Sodomites "just wanted to get to know" them, which seems to be the heart of this particular post's argument. The part you quoted essentially says, "Why is it the apparent 'gay' part, not the 'let us rape with your stranger guests' part, that's the worst of this?" I don't understand where you got the answer "Silly Kthleen, 'know' doesn't actually mean 'get acquainted with' here!"

    Second, last I checked, Sodom didn't just pop into existence just before the angels came. It seems to me that you're equating their attempted rape of the angels with the entirety of their sin. If you don't get how, look at your sentence: "If 'know' means simply 'to get acquainted,' why does the Bible repeatedly use forms of the word ''wicked' to refer to the actions of the Sodomites?"

    "If [referring to the angels] 'know'='get acquainted,' why is it [getting to 'know' the angels, as opposed to any other thing they've done] considered 'wicked'?"

    Like I said, refer me to where I said "the just wanted to get to know them." Then, since it's obvious that you're saying "know"="have sex" and that having sex with the angels (in whatever capacity: rape, fornication, adultery, attempted homosexuality) is wrong, do you seriously think all they ever did in all the time they existed was try to have sex with these angels (and/or anybody who came into their city)? That (if you exclude the part in the parentheses) they were slated for destruction because God knew what they were going to do and the maybe only wickedness before the attempt was their thoughts of "The next strangers that come to our city, we rape"? That all their haughtiness, selfishness, and greed meant nothing or next to nothing, and it was only sex that brought their downfall?

    Third, if you are going to go along the "know=know, not know=have sex with" route, maybe Lot misinterpreted their desire to harshly interrogate the angels as a desire to have sex with them (ah, double entendres...). I'm not saying that it's the most likely answer or the answer, just that there may be a non-zero chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon View Post
    The men of Sodom threatened Lot with the words, “we will deal worse with you than with them” (Genesis 19:9). If their intention was simply to “get to know” the visitors, what would “dealing worse” with Lot entail? Did their threat imply that they would become so thoroughly acquainted with Lot that they perpetually would remain in his presence and make a pest of themselves? Maybe they intended to impose on Lot’s hospitality to the point that they monopolized his house, ate his snack foods, and refused to leave his home at a courteous hour?
    Murder, perhaps? Maybe they were planning on brutalizing and humiliating the angels, but since Lot wouldn't let them, they interpreted his behavior as not letting the natives "do their thing." OR, if the misinterpretation did happen, then they might have interpreted his behavior as letting potential spies or subverters (?) into their city without anybody checking them out because he thinks he has the authority to do so.

    Or perhaps instead of just brutalizing the angels, they do it to the angels, Lot, and his family, then take their house and possessions, leaving them broken and broke. In addition, they could murder his family and his guests in front of him while letting him escape with his life, leaving him broken, broke, without family, and feeling terrible that he was unable to protect his guests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Profesco View Post
    That also means I won't be able to contribute much. I have no great in-depth analysis of the Bible in my background, nor such a historically-inclined genius as you do.
    Sadly, same's true of me. I know some stuff, but not too much.....
    Last edited by Kthleen; 16th March 2008 at 9:42 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,588

    Default

    Does not the Bible often illustrate hospitality with people bringing others into their homes, feeding them, washing their feet, and protecting them, essentially making their guests equal to them? And what of the Sodomites: being too proud to let the poor and needy become their equals or greater than them for even a second ("Bring poor people into my home? Wash the feet of those people, putting myself in a position below them? No way!"); being too greedy to feed them, even with excess food; despite being prosperous, being unwilling to share any of it with those who have greater need of it; and presumably not doing any of these things to not only strangers and refugees, but even non-strangers within their borders, therefore not protecting them?
    Selfishness =/= inhospitality, poor =/= guests.



    Ok, first, show me where I said or even implied the Sodomites "just wanted to get to know" them, which seems to be the heart of this particular post's argument. The part you quoted essentially says, "Why is it the apparent 'gay' part, not the 'let us rape with your stranger guests' part, that's the worst of this?" I don't understand where you got the answer "Silly Kthleen, 'know' doesn't actually mean 'get acquainted with' here!"
    I didn't say it was in your argument, I was going off on a tangent.

    Second, last I checked, Sodom didn't just pop into existence just before the angels came. It seems to me that you're equating their attempted rape of the angels with the entirety of their sin. If you don't get how, look at your sentence: "If 'know' means simply 'to get acquainted,' why does the Bible repeatedly use forms of the word ''wicked' to refer to the actions of the Sodomites?"
    Why?


    "If [referring to the angels] 'know'='get acquainted,' why is it [getting to 'know' the angels, as opposed to any other thing they've done] considered 'wicked'?"
    Like I said, refer me to where I said "the just wanted to get to know them." Then, since it's obvious that you're saying "know"="have sex" and that having sex with the angels (in whatever capacity: rape, fornication, adultery, attempted homosexuality) is wrong, do you seriously think all they ever did in all the time they existed was try to have sex with these angels (and/or anybody who came into their city)? That (if you exclude the part in the parentheses) they were slated for destruction because God knew what they were going to do and the maybe only wickedness before the attempt was their thoughts of "The next strangers that come to our city, we rape"? That all their haughtiness, selfishness, and greed meant nothing or next to nothing, and it was only sex that brought their downfall?
    I never said that was their only sin, and neither does the bible. I am saying the first and foremost reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed was because of homosexual behavior.

    Third, if you are going to go along the "know=know, not know=have sex with" route, maybe Lot misinterpreted their desire to harshly interrogate the angels as a desire to have sex with them (ah, double entendres...). I'm not saying that it's the most likely answer or the answer, just that there may be a non-zero chance.
    Come agian?

    Murder, perhaps? Maybe they were planning on brutalizing and humiliating the angels, but since Lot wouldn't let them, they interpreted his behavior as not letting the natives "do their thing." OR, if the misinterpretation did happen, then they might have interpreted his behavior as letting potential spies or subverters (?) into their city without anybody checking them out because he thinks he has the authority to do so.

    Or perhaps instead of just brutalizing the angels, they do it to the angels, Lot, and his family, then take their house and possessions, leaving them broken and broke. In addition, they could murder his family and his guests in front of him while letting him escape with his life, leaving him broken, broke, without family, and feeling terrible that he was unable to protect his guests.
    As previously noted, if “hospitality” were the issue at stake in Sodom, the Sodomites should have been commended, since they only wanted to “get to know” and be hospitable to the visitors. In fact, Lot should have been the one condemned since he attempted to deter the hospitable overtures of the “Welcome Wagon.”

    Note: Some of the stuff you wrote and the wording you used sort of threw me off a bit. It's easy for me to make a long well formulated paragraph, but when other people present one to me I get sort of confused. I'd really appreciate it if you could break somethings down for me or give me a tl;dr version. Thanks Kthleen.



    The only issue I have that wasn't addressed in the article is the idea that it was maybe not Ham's fault at all. I mean, Noah was smashed ... it's perfectly reasonable to think that Noah hit on HAM, sobered up, went "ew" and cursed Canaan because he couldn't admit to his own wrongdoing. I mean, the "Let's take Daddy's power" seems reasonable as well, but in all my searching I've never really come across the suggestion that the curse is a result of "blaming the victim" (or blaming the victim's kid, really).
    8D It's about time. I've been looking everywhere for you. True, that also seems like a feasible position to take. My question is why did Noah curse his son Ham. That hardly ever happens throughout the old testament. Why didn't he just beat the tar out of him like every other person did to their child in biblical times?

    Sadly, same's true of me. I know some stuff, but not too much.....

    On second though...maybe it's best to get back on topic. Geez, I'm off topic in my own thread.
    Last edited by Ethan; 17th March 2008 at 4:26 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Well, at some point in that article, it mention's Lot's daughters. Note that the origins for nations the Israelites don't particularly like are described in vile terms: Cain begets civilization (and the OT is very anti-urban), there's the Noah scandal whatever it is (which discusses Canaan, whose idols were extremely popular in Israel despite the prophets' complaining), Lot's problem (Amorites [I think] and the Moabites, who harassed Exodus-era Israelites)... Propaganda runs rampant throughout the bible, giving anyone outside Israel a vile origin.

    And you could have emailed me, y'know...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    He obvoiusly didn't get two of every ham.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •