North And South Korea Unite – For A Time

North And South Korea Unite – For A Time February 9, 2018

When North and South Korea decided to join together in representing all of Korea, why aren’t they able to work out the other issues they have with one another?

United we Stand

When North and South Korea agreed to walk out together under the same flag at the Winter Olympics in South Korea, it was a rare display of unity between two nations that are not at peace with one another. What is surprising is that Kim Jong-un’s decision comes at a time when there is a lot of tension about North Korea’s nuclear program, but apparently, some things transcend politics. Things like sports and the Olympics in particular. As we have seen from history, when there is a threat to a nation, and that threat is also faced by other nations, even those hostile to it, those nations tend to find common ground and join together to work for a solution or to fight a common enemy.   This can even happen to nations that have previously been at war with one another, so when a bigger threat is seen, the nations are more cooperative with one another, but why do sports seem to have the same effect of drawing natural enemies together in a peaceful display of athletic events?  And, why did Kim Jong-un allow the North Korean’s women’s hockey team to join together with the South Korea team? And what moved him to allow the women’s hockey team to play together? Is there something about sports that unites us and causes us to overlook our differences? In a worst case scenario like a global threat from some impending disaster, you can be sure the nations would quickly unite to find a solution.

Divided we Fall

It has been 27 years since North and South Korea united for anything, so this cooperation should be seen as something significant, at least on the surface. What other things might Kim Jung-un be thinking is impossible to tell, but at least for now, we see a tiny and brief glimpse of “Korea” as it was…and it’s been a very long time since Korea has been unified on anything. After World War Two, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed to accept Japan’s surrender in Korea, and what used to be the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North) and the Republic of Korea (South) was divided at the 38th parallel, with the Soviet Union occupying Korea north of the 38th parallel line, while the United States occupied the country south of the 38th parallel line. That agreement, made in 1945, remains in effect today. It was intended to be temporary as Korea came to terms and agreed upon some kind of unified form of government. When the Cold War struck in 1947, both the political differences between the north and the south, and the military presence of the U.S. and the Soviets, polarized the nations and have served to keep them separate unto today.

How it Happened

The fact that North and South Korea will enter the opening ceremony in Pyeongchang under a single flag is an amazing thing. Thomas Bach, president of the International Olympic Committee, and Olympic organizers, have been working on this since 2014, and Thomas Bach believes that this agreement was completed in the true Olympic spirit of respect and friendship.   Unifying the nations is not be the reason they hold the Olympics, but it’s certainly a byproduct of it, however, the tensions between North Korea and South Korea will almost certainly resume after the Olympics have ended. Then, it will be back to business as usual, because there is little evidence that this situation will change. Undoubtedly the U.S. and Russian influence has not served to unite the two. If anything, it has left these two nations with irreconcilable ideologies. In recent years, their relationship has grown worse. The last attempt to work together for the common good (2000) failed miserably because of the differences of how the government would govern and who would hold power. Kim Jong-un is not about to let go of any power. For him, its totalitarianism or nothing, so the prospect of the two Korea’s being unified looks bleak right now. Even so, to have these two nations cooperate for the Olympics is at least good, however, this didn’t happen overnight. It took years of negotiation, but what appeared to be impossible just a few months ago, happened. Ironically, on the same day that North Korea and South Korea were announcing the Olympics agreement, a North Korean state-run newspaper called on South Korea to stop its military drills with the US.

Conclusion

The Bible teaches us that “God shows no partiality” (Rom 2:11), “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe” (Deut 10:17), and He “who shows no partiality to princes, nor regards the rich more than the poor, for they are all the work of his hands” (Job 34:19). Since “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34), neither must we because God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:27). Someday, there will be no hostilities between the nations as there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1-3), and pain, sorrow, suffering, wars, and death will all come to an end (Rev 21:4). No one’s going to have to negotiate to unite this kingdom. The kingdom already has its subjects, and the King’s already been anointed, but right now we’re living in the “Now, but not yet,” but, it is coming. When? I have no idea, but I do know it is coming…and nothing will ever divide the nations again.

Article by Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman is Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren Church in Mulvane Kansas. Jack is a writer at Christian Quotes and also the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google Plus or check out his book Teaching Children the Gospel available on Amazon.

"I’m thinking about the story of Pharoah in Exodus. He keeps trying to do a ..."

Joshua’s Transition Into Leadership
"It is truly a blessing to have you here, Pastor. Thanks be to God for ..."

Thanksgiving As A Way Of Life
"Thank you. You are so encouraging. When I read Psalm 115:1 & 1 Cor 4:7, ..."

Thanksgiving As A Way Of Life
"Hi Jack, I am sooo grateful for your thanksgiving heart. This article truly blessed me ..."

Thanksgiving As A Way Of Life

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Maltnothops

    Designating one group as “god’s chosen people” is obviously partiality.

    • Tiny J

      No it isn’t.

      • Maltnothops

        How so?

        • Tiny J

          It’s a commission. A responsibility. Not a privilege. One of the books of the prophets has an entire essay on it. I forget which one right off the top of my head.

          • Maltnothops

            Partiality need not imply privilege. Partiality is a form of bias. And since you have just pointed out that your bible includes an entire essay on it, you’ve made my point and refuted yours. As Jack said, read the bible.

            Just in case you think partiality does imply privilege: then by choosing Israel, your god privileged all the other tribes by excusing them from a responsibility that it imposed on Israel. To favor X is to disfavor not-X. To disfavor X is to favor not-X.

            Or as Tevye the milkman says, “I know, I know. We are your chosen people. But, once in a while, can’t you choose someone else?”

          • Tiny J

            That makes sense, if that’s what you meant by partiality, but I’m still not sure what your ultimate point is.

          • Maltnothops

            Isn’t that what partiality means? I don’t have a private definition.

          • Jean Camille

            You were right in the first place. That commission was for Abraham to be the father of the nations. He was chosen to be the first of many, and his people were simply the first of many, not chosen to exclude everyone else. We can all be members of God’s family through following Jesus Christ. Partiality is irrelevant here. Blessings

          • Tiny J

            That was kinda’ my thought process. It can’t really be “partiality” when the standard applies to everyone. That’s like giving one of your children a box of candy bars to share with your other children. In the end, everyone gets the same thing. Just because you gave the first child the task, doesn’t mean you favor him/her more/less than the others.

          • Jean Camille

            I like the metaphor. Thanks

  • Jack Wellman

    You can be part of that “chosen group” if you trust in Christ. God shows no partiality to Jew, Gentile, male or female. It’s in the Bible. Just read it for yourself.

    • Maltnothops

      I have read it. That’s how I know that the god of the bible chose the Israelites to be his people. Sure, you can quote verses that say that god isn’t partial but the bible shows those statements to be false. As you say, it is all right there in your scriptures.

      • Jean Camille

        You ignore what Jack said. For the moment, leave aside the rest of the world. From reading the New Testament, you know that you personally are free to join Jesus’ family any time you choose. So, whatever this “chosen people” thing means in reality, it does not exclude you.

        If you feel “partiality”, you can fix that in an instant by joining Jesus yourself and prove to yourself that this “chosen” status is not partiality against you.

        So, what do you choose, to join Jesus in His venture or go your own way?

        • Maltnothops

          This isn’t about me. Whether or not I “feel partiality” is irrelevant. (I don’t, by the way.) I don’t even have a dog in this fight. The claim that your god doesn’t show partiality when it chose one tribe out of all others struck me as silly. So silly that I figured Jack simply miswrote whatever he meant to say. Apparently not, because both he and you are here arguing that up is actually down. Weird.

          • Jean Camille

            Please answer the question: Do you choose to follow Jesus Christ, yes or no?

          • Maltnothops

            I think your time is better spent ensuring that you are reading your scriptures accurately. If I understand your beliefs correctly, that ought to be vitally important to you. I know that most Christians think that most Christians have it wrong.

            I’m astonished at your interpretation that your god doesn’t care what people believe. I regard that as counter to practically everything your texts say about your god.

          • Jean Camille

            Stop stalling. Yes or no?

          • Maltnothops

            Stalling? I wasn’t planning on answering that question at all since it isn’t on point. But tell you what, I will answer on one condition: You explain how my answer helps determine whether or not your god shows partiality to anyone (or group) in your bible.

            Mind you now, the question isn’t whether or not there is partiality. Your mission (ha ha), if you choose to accept it, is to explain how knowing my answer addresses the issue of partiality in your bible. FWIW, I don’t think you can do it.

          • Jean Camille

            Yes, you are spot on. It was clear you failed to see the link when you glossed over Jack’s comment. That is why I responded. Obviously, talk is not enough; we need an element of demonstration. That is why, for me to accept your “mission””, I need your response.

            Let me be clear: it is not my place to convince you what to think. I will show you why I believe as I do. From there, I accept it is your responsibility entirely to decide whether you agree or not.

            So, let’s settle this. Please tell me: will you follow Jesus Christ, yes or no?

          • Maltnothops

            You don’t need my answer. Go ahead and demonstrate both scenarios.

          • Jean Camille

            You don’t know that. And stop being so insulting. Respond to me like a real person. Answer the simple question: yes, or no?

          • Maltnothops

            “…insulting.” It wasn’t my intention to be insulting. And I’ve no idea what I wrote that you found insulting. Please point it so I can understand your perspective.

            As to the substance, I am baffled at your unwillingness make a generic logical argument that could apply to any person on earth. I don’t for one second think that you are unable to do so (now that would insulting).

            Assume a person. Any person. Assume the answer to your question is yes (or no if you think that can give you a stronger argument, though I don’t see how it would). And then explain how that person’s yes (or no) shows that your god wasn’t being partial when it designated the Israelites as his chosen people.

          • Jean Camille

            I understand how you would be baffled at my unwillingness to engage in the usual process.

            Have you ever had friends put a blindfold on you and have you follow them into a room? Metaphorically, this is similar.

            I am asking you to accept the bafflement and answer the question anyway. At this stage in your life, do you choose to follow Jesus Christ, yes or no?

          • Maltnothops

            You might want to scroll to the part where Tiny J and I had a productive exchange. Tiny J quickly reversed his view about partiality.

            By the way, you didn’t explain what you found insulting.

          • Jean Camille

            Yes, I saw that. I am very happy for Tiny J. It is a joy to expand awareness. I am aware also of the point about insults. We can address that too once we get the ball rolling, when you let me know your answer: At this point, do you choose to follow Jesus Christ, yes or no?

          • Maltnothops

            I don’t accept that the choice is binary. We can discuss a better question afterwards.

          • Jean Camille

            We can certainly discuss better questions afterwards once you know my perspective. To get that far, if you see more than two choices, feel free, please enlighten me: Right now, do you choose to follow Jesus Christ, yes, no, or … ?

          • Maltnothops

            To reiterate: “But tell you what, I will answer on one condition: You explain how my answer helps determine whether or not your god shows partiality to anyone (or group) in your bible.”

            You haven’t succeeded yet.

          • Jean Camille

            Are you serious? You cowardly little weasel.

            I ask a simple question. For some unknown reason, you are too anxious to answer it. So, you camouflage your anxiety with a bombastic demand for an explanation. Wake up to yourself.

            “You haven’t succeeded yet.” At what? What do you imagine is my goal?

            Or just skip the prancing around and get on with a meaningful discussion: For the moment, do you choose to follow Jesus Christ, yes, no, or … ?

          • Maltnothops

            Is this the part about being insulting? Seems like it. No, I’m not anxious. No, not bombastic. I’ve been completely clear, consistent and polite. I regard your question as irrelevant. I wrote that three days ago.

            Here’s the part you haven’t succeeded at: “how my answer helps determine whether or not your god shows partiality to anyone (or group) in your bible.”

            I thought your goal was to show that your god isn’t partial. You seem to think that I misunderstood or failed to grasp something Jack wrote.

            You’ve indicated that you are able show me something — I’m wondering what — in more than one way (you wrote something about the “usual process”) but, for whatever reasons, you are unwilling to do so. So, if you are willing, get on with the meaningful conversation. Again, I refer you to my meaningful conversation with Tiny J as an example. I still have some confidence that you aren’t just bluffing. However, you simply repeating a question that you yourself agree is unnecessary to the conversation is eroding my confidence.

            And, really, name-calling? That is what pud does.

          • Jean Camille

            Not name-calling; I meant every word of it.

            I apologise if you gained the impression I think this question is unnecessary. Now more than before, I think it necessary.

            Yes, I believe you missed Jack’s point. I believe you also misunderstood Tiny J. I suspect it is because of differences in mindset. To get around those differences and to track if you are misunderstanding me too, I need you to answer that question.

            That one question is central to the issue of partiality in this case. From my perspective, it is highly relevant. With your mindset, it is no surprise you do not see its relevance.

            What does surprise me is how this supposedly irrelevant question is such a stumbling block to you. If it is irrelevant to you, then answering it should be a trivial matter, easy to do.

            So, please decide what you want to do.

            If you want to understand my perspective, you will need a willingness to pursue it on my terms. Then, and only then, will you be informed enough to decide if you agree or not. If you want to participate, tell me, at this time, do you choose to follow Jesus Christ, yes, no, or …?

            If allowing this small “irrelevancy” is too much of a hurdle for you, then say so and we will just leave the matter.

          • Maltnothops

            Name-calling (noun) the act of insults no someone by calling them rude names. Did you intend “you cowardly little weasel” as a compliment? Whether or not you were sincere is irrelevant. It was name-calling. I suspect pud is no less sincere than you. Do you think that pud isn’t name-calling?

            I don’t know where you got the idea I was interested in your perspective. Certainly not from me. It is my impression that you had something you wanted to say to me. You’ve spent four days not doing it. Why don’t you try “the usual process” for making a valid argument? It is a proven technique. Your special pleading is unacceptable to me.

            I guess you have a choice to make. Make a logical argument or run away.

            ETA: If you really think your question is relevant, please make the case for that. Ought to be easy.

          • Jean Camille

            Apologies: I am having trouble getting through the spam filter. For anyone who wants the full response, click on my profile.

            In essence: Why the feeling of insult? 1. You show a pattern followed by a group of players who work to tactics and not in response to people. They treat people as objects and that is insulting. 2. You question, demand and set conditions but will not answer a question yourself. That is not equal treatment but looking down on others and that is insulting.

            Name calling? I think it fits the character you portray. You will not declare your position and that is cowardly. You will not give over the conversational lead and that is small spirited, “little”. You will not accept accountability but wriggle out of it like a weasel. Also, You are puffed up (“Your special pleading is unacceptable to me”).

            We know about such people. They are the ones trying to look superior, these cowardly little weasels with self-aggrandising agendas.

            We want to keep a sense of peace but are aware that this type need to wake up to reality. And, when they make rash claims, we need to deal with that for the sake of our less mature colleagues, So, there is some call for frank response.

            As for you, Malty, I suspect you simply have no room in your heart for anyone else. You state you have no interest in what I have to say, We can take that as a decision and leave it at that.

        • Jean Camille

          Test

          • jamesparson

            It worked

    • pud

      You can no more “trust in christ” than you can “trust in Paul Bunyon” There is the exact same evidence for both. The only difference is one grew into a delusional cult and the other didn’t. They are both STORIES!! NARRATIVES that read like stories! Only the infantile actually “believe” in them as genuine characters and only fools model their entire life around a man made make believe STORY!

      • Jean Camille

        Pud, you are the man who believes he has no beliefs and cannot see the contradiction in that. You reject science and logic if it does not suit your purpose (see “When The Scriptures Say ‘But God’” DEC. 18, 2017 Comments). You demand material evidence of immaterial things and cannot see the question-begging nature of that demand. Sorry, Pud, you do not qualify to be taken seriously.

        • pud

          LOL!

          Tell us all about “immaterial” evidence for the “immaterial”

          This has to be the most stupid reply I’ve ever received

          • Jean Camille

            Exactly my point. That is what you are asking for, something totally stupid.

          • pud

            You have no point dummy. Demonstrate ANYTHING “immaterial” Tell me how it’s rational to “believe” in ANYTHING that is undetectable. Tell me what the difference is between undetectable and non-existent. The only stupid one is you for “believing” ANYTHING without evidence and without any means to detect it.

          • Jean Camille

            Enough with the shouting, you curmudgeonly old cripple. You still cannot see the contradictions, can you?

          • pud

            There is NO contradiction you loony. You make the “claim” that something exists….How do you know? Show me one single example of anything “immaterial” that exists. The proof of existence is in its ability to be measured! Can you measure the “immaterial”? NO! So it doesn’t exist. Logic 101

            Is there a difference between “undetectable” and “non-existent” Yes or No?

            If you answer yes then show your work! LOL

          • Jean Camille

            The binary code of our computer software is made by intelligent beings, yes, no?

          • pud

            Answer my questions first.

          • Jean Camille

            Answer your what?

          • pud

            My QUESTIONS in the reply above…duh

            Is there a difference between “undetectable” and “non-existent” Yes or No?

            If you answer yes then show your work! LOL

          • Jean Camille

            A question is an abstract idea. In your view ideas do not exist. So you have asked about something non=existant.

          • pud

            lol Concepts don’t exist. Logic doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean they are not useful tools to determine what does and does not exist. Tired of your babble.

          • Jean Camille

            Non-existent tools?
            And you still cannot see the contradictions!

          • pud

            If you’re thinking of bringing up DNA you will be proven stupid again…DNA is NOT information it is a molecule…a self replicating molecule that is the product of the laws of chemistry and physics nothing more. Information is not a “thing” it is a “concept” it is the subjective interpretation of the interactions between things. Quit while your only a little behind…I will chew you up and spit you out. I’ve destroyed many of your betters. You will only embarrass yourself further

          • Jean Camille

            Pompous blowbag

          • pud

            Stupid hayseed

          • Jean Camille

            At least farmers have some useful function

          • Kyra Lynne

            Rofl.

          • Jean Camille

            Aah. You too! Mind you, we need to keep a gentle heart, and I feel that you know what I mean. As the saying goes, “Honey is from bees, and laughter the froth on a river of pain.” Blessings, and thank you.

          • Kyra Lynne

            Yes, I do know what you mean. I’ve engaged Pud before and it wasn’t very pleasant but I liked your attitude. I pray for these people I come across, I’ve found it is a good idea 😉
            Anyways, God bless.
            ~Kyra

          • Jean Camille

            Kyra, can you please send me a short text? I want to check what happens if I label it as spam when I get it.
            Bless you,
            Jean

          • Kyra Lynne

            Uh, you mean right here? Sure 🙂 Is it Disqus or this site?

          • Jean Camille

            Thanks. I don’t know, still trying to work it out :/

          • Kyra Lynne

            Too bad :/ Maybe someone else was trying to get your comments deleted–?

          • Jean Camille

            Thought about that, but it is more likely the spam filters. E.g. If we resend the comment, the filters pick up the similarity and assume it is more likely than ever to be spam. Tricky!
            Thanks for your help : )

          • Kyra Lynne

            Hmm. Okay, that sounds probable. Rather annoying for you tho ;P
            Hey, it’s cool. Don’t mention it ;D.

        • Tiny J

          “This user is blocked.”

    • Maltnothops

      Hey Jack, does your god show partiality to people at their death who believe in its divinity or does everyone go to heaven?

      • jamesparson

        When I was a Christian, I knew what the answer to that was: Atheists go to hell.

        • Jean Camille

          And now?

        • Maltnothops

          That wouldn’t be partiality if everyone else did too.

          • Dom Saunders

            I’ll piss in your face.

          • Maltnothops

            “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love. Yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love.”

        • Jean Camille

          No, No, … Don’t tell me. They stopped going to hell because you stopped being a Christian!

          • jamesparson

            That is an interesting way of putting it. I don’t know what happens to them, but evidence suggests that nothing happens after they die.

          • Jean Camille

            This may not apply to you, but some act as if stating their belief defines the reality around them. It is ok to clarify where we are coming from, but those other ones irritate me.
            What constitutes evidence in after death discussion?

          • jamesparson

            I would not all for the trap that what I believe is a one to one match with reality. I work towards having believes that match reality as close as possible. Some things I am confidant on and others I am not so confidant. Most importantly, I reserve to right to change my mind when warranted and I reserve the right to say I don’t know.

            I don’t know what constitutes evidence in after death discussions. I have hear people claim of after death experiences, but those are not particularly interesting.

          • Jean Camille

            I agree. On one hand, I think you would agree there are areas where knowledge is precise, but for the most part, I am constantly adjusting my beliefs too.

            I am confused, though. If you “don’t know what constitutes evidence in after death discussions,” then how would you know if “evidence suggests that nothing happens after they die.”?

          • jamesparson

            When a claim is main, it is the burden on the person or people making the claim to demonstrate its validity. I don’t have to prove it false.

            As for death, we have ample numbers of dead people. They have yet to have done anything. They just stay dead.

          • Jean Camille

            Reviewing the rules of debate will not enlighten us here.

            The point is that, when you say, “evidence suggests …”, then I assume you have some idea of what that evidence is. Naturally, I am taken aback when you say you have no idea what it might be.

            Mind you, I am noticing confusion over exactly what “evidence” is.

      • Jean Camille

        He will haul up anyone who is hanging on to the lifeline

    • pud

      How many pieces of silver does a rapist have to pay to his victims father in order to marry her forcefully? According to “god”….It’s in the bible. Just read it for yourself.

      • jamesparson

        Isn’t it 50 or so? And he can never get a divorce? I don’t know if things change if she eats shrimp though.

  • pud

    “The Bible teaches us that “God shows no partiality” Wrong again! What of the “chosen people” ? What of gender divides? What of the master/slave relationship expressly outlined in your stupid book? Are you ever right about anything jack? No, you’re not!

    ““Now, but not yet,” but, it is coming. When? I have no idea, but I do know it is coming…and nothing will ever divide the nations again.” No you do not KNOW ANYTHING! You “claim” you “assert” you babble nonsense from an ancient book written by know nothing religious apocalyptic lunatics!

    Ask yourself “What kind of a “god” is worthy of worship who watches all this suffering until some unknown future date”? What “creator of the universe” has so little worth doing in infinite time except watch this little drama unfold? You’re insane jack…You have no sense of scale, no ability to critically think. You’re just a hook line and sinker indoctrinated drone who willfully denies all reason and evidence to continue your wicked livelihood of deceiving others with absurd ridiculous nonsense!

    The primary divisor of people is TRIBALISM! There is NO greater tribalism than RELIGION!

  • pud

    You are so infantile in all your world views. You can see nothing for the veil of ignorance you keep over your eyes in the form of that ghastly ancient book written by ignorant stupid superstitious savages who didn’t know the Earth was round.

    Borders and wars exist because of tribalism. Conflict takes place because of ideologies and cultural superstitions. The vast majority of all wars have religious underpinnings with no war that I know of not having a “god” on each combatants side. Some of the most brutal engagements took place between lunatics of your own cult who each had the same stupid book but couldn’t agree on how to interpret the “perfect word” Of course you conveniently ignore everything that conflicts with your jaded view of things and your particular cults slant on the absurd.

    North Korea is on the brink of destruction because of the clash of irrational ideologies, the lust for power and control, egos, superstitions and yes, religion. North Korea is organized just like your cult with “dear leader” one small step from being a demigod. He is worshiped just as you worship your celestial dictator and the masses just like you can do nothing on their own absent divine guidance. You, your cult, all religious cults, N. Koreans all wish to be slaves and have sacrifices all their critical faculties in favor of submissive compliance to mindless doctrine and delusional beliefs.

    You need to grow the hell up jack. You need to stop living in your fantasy land of make believe and pretend.

  • pud

    Oh look! The religious lunatics ready to go on another killing spree! Where’s “jesus”? MIA, AWOL again!

    Israel “Preparing For War In North”, Boosts Air Defenses; Warns Iran

    Israel appears to be “preparing for war in the North” according to the Jerusalem Post, which reports that the Jewish state has boosted its air defense in the region along the Syrian border following Saturday’s “significant confrontation.”

  • Tiny J

    North Korea is still a torturous dictatorship that’s existence is only tolerated due to their weakness and ineptitude. Let’s not ignore that.

    • Jack Wellman

      Hello Tiny J. I agree my friend. We can’t ignore the crimes of this North Korea dictator.

  • Jean Camille

    Jack,. someone keeps tagging–and removing–my last response to Maltnothops as spam. Can you do something to stop that, please.

    • Jack Wellman

      I don’t know who is doing that my friend, Unfortunately, I cannot control others from doing this. It is they who are marking your comments as spam but it’s a convient way to get you from stopping your comments. I am sorry for all this.

      • Jean Camille

        Yes, that was my concern too. I cannot replicate it, though, so it is more likely the spam bot after all. Thanks.