Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:47 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, Tanypteryx (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 31 of 304 (410640)
07-16-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Admin
07-16-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Ringo compares African-Americans to dirty apes
That's a pretty nasty subtitle, not to mention misleading in the extreme.

Exactly my point, good sir!!!

Subtitles are listed in most message lists. You might want to consider changing it.

Done deal.

Your response to Ringo, and I'm talking about the entire message now, not just the subtitle, raises a good point about the importance of maintaining civility, but it probably isn't a good idea to use EvC Forum as a testing ground of people's ability to maintain equanimity in the face of inflammatory or frustrating behavior. It would be better to see people trying to set examples as facilitator and communicator rather than instigator.

As long as you understand the premise of the test, I'm happy with that.


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 07-16-2007 12:46 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-16-2007 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 304 (410641)
07-16-2007 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taz
07-16-2007 1:33 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
quote:
Remember that nem jug is a police officer of some sort. He's experienced with these sort of things. He knows how to press our buttons and make it appear that we are at fault. He has done a very good job at hiding his insults in a form of opinion.

Oh, we're definitely on the same page about that. I haven't been on here all that much lately - it rained all weekend long and I've had nothing else to do these past few days - and it's been months since I've noticed that stupid online at the same time as me (I always check to see who's on). I don't for one minute think it was just coincidence that, for the first time in months when we were both on at the same time, he at that moment made his comparison of gay sex to rape and then started moralizing at Percy. He knew exactly what he was doing. I took up the moralizing first, intending to get to the rape comparison later (didn't want to deal with it at that instant; blood boiling, needed a decicious, refreshing Borden's Dutch Chocolate Milk), but as it happened I only got round to the rape thing indirectly.

Did you notice how quickly he whipped out that admin shit on me? Obviously wanted to be sure I knew, and I guess he got me cuz until that moment I didn't. That's when I checked and figured out he'd been made admin at about the same time he made his comparison of gays to animals in one of the Haggard threads. Kinda shook me a bit, you might say.

I appreciate Ringo's simile of comparing African-Americans to baboons or apes. If someone made such a comparison here it wouldn't be allowed to stand for one minute before the poster would be possibly banned, definitely suspended and certainly not made admin. But because most straight guys, even the liberal ones, haven't given gay issues much thought they simply can't understand why I feel so deeply offended by it all. The fact that you do understand leads me to believe there's a gay person in your life whom you care very much about. Whoever it is, they're very lucky to have a brother or friend like you.

I've reached a point in my life where I just can't deal with this type of insulting shit anymore. Time was I had to put up with it everywhere. But over the years, I've put most all of the bigots like him out of my life in one way or another. The hardest was my dad. That still hurts. I talk to him once in a very long while, but it's only small talk. I never tell him much about my life because I really don't want him to know anything. We're not close anymore, so what's the point?

For another thing, I don't have to put up with crap like this at work these days. Back in the mid 90s I got fired from a lucrative job when the boss, a goddamned southern fucking baptist, fired me after finding out about me. I decided then that I didn't have the option to keep it a secret from anyone anymore, because I wanted to be certain that that would never happen again. And it hasn't. Today, if someone says something even approaching what the admin/stupid said, I'll fire him or her on the spot (I've had to do it once). There's only one guy over me and he's as liberal as I am, if not more so. And since - thanks largely to those same southern baptists - Mississippi is a right-to-work state, they can't do shit about it.

So things have changed. I'm not as accustomed as I once was to being insulted, so maybe that's the whole problem. I tell ya what, though: I'll take that problem. It's great to have the privilege of a problem like that.

The company I work for can put me in any of several other cities if I want to go, so I'm really going to get out of this Jesusland hell-hole before too much longer, and this kind of crap will hopefully be just a fucked up memory. I'm waiting for someone close to die, and then I'm gonna do it, even though it'll mean leaving family and many very close friends behind. I'm leaning toward Atlanta or Tampa. I've visited Atlanta fairly frequently and Tampa once over the past couple years. I love both. I've got a lot of friends in Atlanta, so that's probably where I'll go, but Tampa sure is an exciting, vibrant city. I love it, so I haven't made up my mind yet. What I really want to do is get away from the goddamned xians (when I use that phrase and that spelling, I'm speaking of that kind). It's easier, though, to just get away from straight people. The gay areas of those cities are quite large, so at least I'll be able to keep away from that certain kind of xian, even if I'm not trying to get away from all straight folk!

I think maybe Percy has a point, even though I resent the implication from him and all the other heterosexual admins that I'm "thin-skinned" or politically correct. I guess when it gets down to it, most heterosexual men will come down on an outsider before they come down on one of their own. But if Ringo's hypothetical had been the actuality, no one would be having this conversation. So, given the fact that those admins don't get the insult, and they think I'm thin-skinned, I think the only thing for me to do is move along. I really have gotten tired of most of the xians on here; I guess my patience for them is what has worn thin. Certainly, as at work and with friends and most family, I don't have to put up with those bigoted morons anymore, so why should I? They never change. It's not worth it.

If you'd like to continue to communicate with me, my email address is in my profile. And say good-bye to Brad McFall for me. He was always very kind and I really like him

You take care!


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 07-16-2007 1:33 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by AdminModulous, posted 07-16-2007 8:46 PM berberry has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 304 (410642)
07-16-2007 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2007 10:18 AM


You found a way to do it again!
quote:
I don't make comparisons between homosexuals and animals. What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise?

Fuck you!


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2007 10:18 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2007 4:37 PM berberry has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 304 (410646)
07-16-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Ringo compares African-Americans to dirty apes
I don't have infinite time to deal with this issue, nor the wisdom of Solomon to untie the Gordian knot of whatever's going on, but I sense things spiraling out of control, and if this continues then I'll have to get actively involved, which I'd prefer not to do, since I only have time for actions that are rather short and sweet.

nemesis_juggernaut writes:

As long as you understand the premise of the test, I'm happy with that.

If you're purposefully instigating, then it's against the Forum Guidelines. Please make it easy to tell that you're operating within the Forum Guidelines.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2007 1:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 304 (410653)
07-16-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2007 10:18 AM


Re: What's good for the goose, isn't good for the gander
quote:

I don't make comparisons between homosexuals and animals. What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise?

Taking a dispassionate view of this it clearly assumes that homosexual relations are close enough to bestiality that the reasons for forbidding one clearly apply to the other. Indeed it implies that homosexual relations are closer to bestiality than they are to heterosexual relations - something I certainly would not agree with.

Secondly it is primarily an emotive argument that relies on comparing homosexuality to bestiality for its force. If you chose an unoffensive example it would not work, would it ?

Finally, one of the reasons that is offered is that animals are not lack the mental capacity to consent in the same way that humans are it is certainly possible to read the statement as implying that homosexuals are equally lacking.

Therefore if you do not wish to offend in this way I suggest that you find another way of making your point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2007 10:18 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 12:12 AM AdminPaul has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 36 of 304 (410673)
07-16-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by berberry
07-16-2007 1:13 PM


Re: You found a way to do it again!
Fuck you!

Thanks for the offer, but I'm married. :cool:


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 07-16-2007 1:13 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 37 of 304 (410704)
07-16-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by berberry
07-16-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
I think maybe Percy has a point, even though I resent the implication from him and all the other heterosexual admins that I'm "thin-skinned" or politically correct. I guess when it gets down to it, most heterosexual men will come down on an outsider before they come down on one of their own.

Well the last sentence is clearly unfair. Many bigoted people say terrible things about homosexuals and plenty of heterosexuals condemn the bigot. As for the first sentence, I'm not a heterosexual admin and I think you are being thin skinned. It is a valid question regarding the morality of homosexual sex and sex with another species and how do we regard one as morally fine and the other as reprehensible? The answer is straight forward: informed consent separates the two acts. Rape is immoral and animal abuse is immoral, since other species cannot give informed consent any sexual activity is animal abuse or cross species rape.

It's easily answered and there is no implication that homosexuals are anything other than human - otherwise it would not bestiality but 'two dogs shagging' and when we say bestiality we don't mean a dog humping a humans leg. Homosexual sex between humans and bestiality are two sex acts that involve at least one active human participant - one is morally repugnant and the reason is as I highlighted above.

In my view it is certainly the biggest forum related mountain that has been created out of a molehill for some time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by berberry, posted 07-16-2007 1:11 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taz, posted 07-16-2007 10:06 PM AdminModulous has responded
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 12:19 AM AdminModulous has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 38 of 304 (410709)
07-16-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AdminModulous
07-16-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
AdminMod writes:

It is a valid question regarding the morality of homosexual sex and sex with another species and how do we regard one as morally fine and the other as reprehensible? The answer is straight forward: informed consent separates the two acts. Rape is immoral and animal abuse is immoral, since other species cannot give informed consent any sexual activity is animal abuse or cross species rape.


Actually, holmes countered this with his own philosophical lalaland logic. He said that the concept of "informed consent" has to do with legal issues, which we really don't want to drag this conversation into. After all, we have no way of proving one's ability to consent except to make a law stating specifically the age of consent. Holmes also argued that children should be allowed to have sex (they do anyway, according to him), which I'm sure nem jug is more than willing to accept.

In my view it is certainly the biggest forum related mountain that has been created out of a molehill for some time.

I agree. However, not everyone sees it that way. Nem jug just can't see any difference between a homosexual and a rapist, and we're not going to see him change anytime soon. Holmes with his philosophical lalaland made it even more complicated.

But I do agree with you. It's a simple issue that's been made complicated by a series of playing-dumbs and whatnot.

As for the first sentence, I'm not a heterosexual admin and I think you are being thin skinned.

You also live in England, which has far less christian bigots than the deep south in the States.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AdminModulous, posted 07-16-2007 8:46 PM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:25 AM Taz has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 39 of 304 (410721)
07-17-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by AdminPaul
07-16-2007 2:00 PM


Re: What's good for the goose, isn't good for the gander
AdminPaul writes:

quote:
Taking a dispassionate view of this it clearly assumes that homosexual relations are close enough to bestiality that the reasons for forbidding one clearly apply to the other.

It comes down to this: Why would anybody examining same-sex sexual interactions immediately start thinking of sexual activity between species when they wouldn't make such a connection when examining mixed-sex sexual interactions?

After all, gay people don't have sex any differently than straight people. There isn't anything that gay people do that straight people don't do.

Therefore, if sex between people of the same sex is the identical to sex between people of the opposite sex, what on earth leads a person to start thinking about interspecies sex or rape?

And no, it is not thin-skinned to conclude that anybody who would compare same-sex sexual activity to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape is a homophobic bigot. And if we wouldn't tolerate someone making such a comparison regarding race or sex or religion, then it is clear that it is just as intolerable with regard to sexual orientation.

And anybody who doesn't get that is part of the problem.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AdminPaul, posted 07-16-2007 2:00 PM AdminPaul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2007 2:06 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 40 of 304 (410725)
07-17-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by AdminModulous
07-16-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
AdminModulous writes:

quote:
It is a valid question regarding the morality of homosexual sex and sex with another species

Not if you would never make such a question regarding the morality of heterosexual sex and sex with another species. In fact, given the fact that there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do, it is clearly inappropriate to focus on same-sex sexual interactions when discussing the morality of interspecies sexual interactions.

quote:
The answer is straight forward: informed consent separates the two acts. Rape is immoral and animal abuse is immoral, since other species cannot give informed consent any sexual activity is animal abuse or cross species rape.

And what does homosexuality have to do with those things that heterosexuality doesn't? Why would it occur to anybody to jump to bestiality or rape when examining same-sex sexual activity but never bring up mixed-sex sexual activity? The mere fact that the comparison is specifically to gay people is indicative of homophobia.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AdminModulous, posted 07-16-2007 8:46 PM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:16 AM Rrhain has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15031
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 41 of 304 (410735)
07-17-2007 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rrhain
07-17-2007 12:12 AM


Re: What's good for the goose, isn't good for the gander
quote:

It comes down to this: Why would anybody examining same-sex sexual interactions immediately start thinking of sexual activity between species when they wouldn't make such a connection when examining mixed-sex sexual interactions?

Already answered:


...it is primarily an emotive argument that relies on comparing homosexuality to bestiality for its force. If you chose an unoffensive example it would not work, would it ?

The whole point is to choose something most people would regard as nasty and perverted. It's an emotive argument that relies on presenting the acts as somehow equivalent.

How anybody honestly seeking to avoid giving offence could use that argument is beyond me. It is possible that someone so completely lacking in empathy as NJ might do so. But I'd judge it more likely to be intentional. Because then he can put in disclaimers and try to play innocent when people are offended by his intentionally offensive arguments


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 12:12 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 4:55 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 42 of 304 (410736)
07-17-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rrhain
07-17-2007 12:19 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
Not if you would never make such a question regarding the morality of heterosexual sex and sex with another species.

It's an equally valid question - though there are few threads around here concerned with the morality of heterosexual sex. I'm perfectly happy to entertain the question and I don't think it implies that heterosexuals are animals.

Indeed - we can go further and compare bestiality to other sexual activities: why is group sex moral and not bestiality? Why is having sex with somebody fifty years your senior moral when bestiality isn't. If anybody wanted to question the morality of any of these acts, the answer would be the same.

Indeed - the morality of oral sex was once questioned and we could even ask the question of oral sex.

In fact, given the fact that there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do, it is clearly inappropriate to focus on same-sex sexual interactions when discussing the morality of interspecies sexual interactions.

Which is backwards. Nobody is discussing the morality of bestiality. It was assumed that everybody agreed that bestiality was immoral. The question was what reasoning prevents us from considering it moral whereas we can consider homosexual sex not immoral.

The mere fact that the comparison is specifically to gay people is indicative of homophobia.

The question wasn't about gay people but about homosexual sex and its morality. The fact that somebody is questioning it's morality would indicate to me they are homophobic. That is a given. However - the question is does discussing the morality of bestiality mean that we are comparing gays with animals. The answer is no - we are comparing two sexual activities to understand how us non-homophobic people decide that homosexual sex is not immoral but bestiality is.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 12:19 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taz, posted 07-17-2007 2:29 AM AdminModulous has responded
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2007 1:48 AM AdminModulous has responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 43 of 304 (410738)
07-17-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taz
07-16-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
Actually, holmes countered this with his own philosophical lalaland logic. He said that the concept of "informed consent" has to do with legal issues, which we really don't want to drag this conversation into. After all, we have no way of proving one's ability to consent except to make a law stating specifically the age of consent. Holmes also argued that children should be allowed to have sex (they do anyway, according to him), which I'm sure nem jug is more than willing to accept.

If Holmes were here, and this were a debate thread I'd respond. As I did when he was and it was.

You also live in England, which has far less christian bigots than the deep south in the States.

I have family in the deep south - I'm related to some of those Christian bigots I'm afraid to say. Indeed - compared with some of the filth and hatred that comes forth from their lips in real physical encounters on a daily basis...nemesis should be a walk in the park. The vile and physically present bigots should thicken the skin and make nemesis a breath of fresh air.

At least here, you don't have to discuss the issue, you don't have it yelled at you. Debating remains a choice and if you are likely to get upset about an issue - it's probably best to not debate it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taz, posted 07-16-2007 10:06 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 07-17-2007 2:42 AM AdminModulous has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 44 of 304 (410739)
07-17-2007 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 2:16 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
See, some would argue that there is nothing immoral about bestiality. Animal don't have rights. It's not just that they can't give consent, they are incapable of giving consent and they by law can never ever give consent. This is why we can slaughter animal for food and sport.

You've been missing a very important detail about nem jug's comparisons here. When we talked about gay marriage, he compared that with marrying an animal or a motorcycle. When we talked about homosexual sex, he compared that with rape. This was what convinced me that nem jug's chosen examples weren't innocent at all. They were very carefully chosen for specific situation and specific topic to imply that gay people shouldn't have any right to give consent.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:16 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:58 AM Taz has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 45 of 304 (410740)
07-17-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 2:25 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
AM writes:

The vile and physically present bigots should thicken the skin and make nemesis a breath of fresh air.


See, that's what most people think, and it is the most widely accepted misconception I know of. Consider the following very extreme example. Again, I'm using an extreme example to make a point. Not that I want to relate the two situations at all!

According to this reasoning of thickening of the skin after direct long term exposure, we could say that Holocaust survivors should be the ones that shouldn't have any problem with racism or any other hate crimes. In fact, we'd think that they shouldn't have any problem talking about their experiences.

But the truth is it's the rest of us that don't have a problem talking about the Holocaust. Holocaust survivors, on the other hand, are most likely to not want to talk about it at all. They react a lot more to minor offenses than the rest of us. In other words, they are more sensitive to the issue of anti-semitism and other hate based philosophies.

Again, please be reminded that I am not equating gay people to holocaust survivors or bigots to nazis. Godwin's law. I am trying to say that long term direct exposure to the hatefilled filth that the christian bigots give to gay people actually make them more sensitive to the issue. It's the rest of us who aren't constantly harrassed that have the thicker skin in this matter.

And yes, I agree that compared to the filth that's out there, NJ's words resemble more like a walk in the park. This doesn't change the fact that we have an admin that intentionally and repeatedly implies that gay people can't have the right to consent and gay sex is the same as rape.

Oh, and notice how the only people that are calling him on this are the evil atheists. I'm only hearing crickets chirping from the godly moral christian crowd.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:25 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 3:06 AM Taz has not yet responded

Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019