Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
34 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Theodoric, vimesey (6 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,049 Year: 19,085/19,786 Month: 1,505/1,705 Week: 311/446 Day: 50/59 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 271 of 310 (399037)
05-03-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by riVeRraT
05-03-2007 9:00 AM


Offended beyond words
And the same right that I have to take TV out of my house, gives me the right to voice my opinion. TV is public, so the public should have something to say about it. If you don't agree, then you are un-American.

I have to reply to this before I even touch the rest.

Did you seriously just accuse me of trying to violate your First Amendment rights?!

Rat, I have never, in this thread or anywhere else, suggested or even hinted that you shouldn't be able to voice your opinion. I've pretty consistently disagreed with you, and told you your opinions are flat-out wrong, but I'd defend your right to say whatever you please, wrong or not, the same as I'd defend your right to believe whatever you choose, even if I think it equates to believing in Santa Claus.

YOU are the only one in this thread supporting censorship, the limiting or flat-out denying of the right to free speech as provided by the First Amendment. How DARE you try to turn that around and accuse me of being "un-American" for defending the Constitutional rights YOU want to restrict!

The fact is, Rat, the government does not own the airwaves, any more than they own the paper we print books and newspapers on. The fact is, Rat, censorship restricts the free speech of the networks, filmmakers, artists, and individual broadcasters who create the media you may or may not find offensive.

Now, the government may be justified in limiting that free speech somewhat, for the same reason you are not allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and cause a stampede. But only to prevent real, objective harm. And Rat, throughout this thread, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that violent media causes anything you and I would agree constitutes real, objective harm to children. And the fact is, you and your children are NEVER forced to watch any of the violent media, with or without ratings or v-chips or anything else. You watch TV by choice. You own a TV by choice. You ALLOW your children to watch TV by choice.

If you have the right to voice your opinion, Rat, which I agree that you do, then the networks creating the programming you watch also have the right to express themselves however they choose, including through violent media.

Besides, Rat, if you really want to appeal to the majority, lets try this: you have posted surveys where the majority of Americans say that violent media is harmful to children. This is irrelevant to whether it actually causes harm, being based entirely on "common sense" (the same reason people thought the world was flat), but let's run with it anyway.

Why do the networks produce violent media, Rat? Becasue it gets ratings. What are ratings? Ratings are a reflection of the number of people who vote with their remotes, Rat - the number of people who actually want to watch those violent shows. The majority of Americans in those surveys may say they have a problem with it, but when it comes down to the real world and their own viewing preferences...violent shows are pretty damned popular. What gives you the right to censor what the majority of people want to watch, when you are never forced to watch the same?


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 9:00 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:04 AM Rahvin has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 272 of 310 (399116)
05-03-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by riVeRraT
05-02-2007 9:33 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
So then ask yourself (or just read the study, and the several other study's that it quotes done over the last 30 years) just what does it do to our kids.

Presumably, you have read one or more of these studies.

Exactly what are the effects of this violence, both long and short term, according to the studies?

Please list them.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 9:33 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:35 AM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 273 of 310 (399121)
05-03-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by riVeRraT
05-03-2007 9:00 AM


Re: No to Censorship
100% of people used to believe the Earth is flat. They were wrong. A survey showing how many people, even if it's the majority of people, feel or believe a certain way is evidence only of how they feel. It has no relationship whatsoever to reality.

quote:
If 100% of the people do not want Hillary in office, then guess what.

So by your logic, if 100% of the people believe the Earth is flat, it really is flat.

All we have to do, then, is get 100% of the people to believe that we never invaded Iraq, and then those thousands of people will have never died.

Rat, can you please learn to correct yourself?

Every thread descends into you wasting everyone's time stubbornly defending your asinine mistakes as others are forced to explain (over and over) how you were in error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 9:00 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:25 AM nator has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 274 of 310 (399143)
05-04-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by kuresu
05-03-2007 1:50 PM


Re: No to Censorship
And here's a hint--the "public" at EvC is saying something about this, we just don't agree with your stance that the FCC should be able to strictly censure what is broadcasted.

Have you at all read what started that survey done by the FCC?
IF you are wondering what gives the FCC a right or a nudge to do anything, then write a letter to your congressman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by kuresu, posted 05-03-2007 1:50 PM kuresu has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 275 of 310 (399145)
05-04-2007 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Rahvin
05-03-2007 2:29 PM


Re: Offended beyond words
YOU are the only one in this thread supporting censorship, the limiting or flat-out denying of the right to free speech as provided by the First Amendment.

Let's be clear on this, that is not what I am supporting. I am supporting the protection of of our youth.

The fact is, Rat, the government does not own the airwaves, any more than they own the paper we print books and newspapers on.

Yes, they do control it, and they do restrict it.

Now, the government may be justified in limiting that free speech somewhat, for the same reason you are not allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and cause a stampede. But only to prevent real, objective harm.

And that is what I am arooied about, real harm. Can't you see that? or are you too busy calling a conservative and trying to guess my motives?

And Rat, throughout this thread, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that violent media causes anything you and I would agree constitutes real, objective harm to children.

The study shows that. Maybe you only read the first few pages, and selectively chose to quote what suits you, but the study sites many other studys.
Plus, I do not need a study to know this. As a matter of fact, I am the one who hates studys. I only posted it for the benefit of those that live their lives by the study.

. You watch TV by choice. You own a TV by choice. You ALLOW your children to watch TV by choice.

Yes, and let's make that choice a clear choice, won't we?
Just what am I going to see when I sit my kids down in the middle of the day.

You see, this choice you talk about, is really irrelevant and unrealistic in this conversation, the fact sheet shows:
Nielsen Media Research reports that 99% of American households have a television set.

TV is a part of life, get over it. People are not going to start throwing their TV's out over this.

Only a select few choose to do that.

I only want things that are labeled as kids shows, to be just that, a kids show. What is so unrealistic about that?

Why do the networks produce violent media, Rat? Becasue it gets ratings. What are ratings? Ratings are a reflection of the number of people who vote with their remotes, Rat - the number of people who actually want to watch those violent shows. The majority of Americans in those surveys may say they have a problem with it, but when it comes down to the real world and their own viewing preferences...violent shows are pretty damned popular. What gives you the right to censor what the majority of people want to watch, when you are never forced to watch the same?

2/3 of the households do not have kids.

There is a time for violence, and a time for kids shows.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Rahvin, posted 05-03-2007 2:29 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:31 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 298 by Rahvin, posted 05-04-2007 7:35 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 276 of 310 (399148)
05-04-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by nator
05-03-2007 11:46 PM


Re: No to Censorship
So by your logic, if 100% of the people believe the Earth is flat, it really is flat.

This is your and many other people here, problem with making comparisons. They must be made in context of what we are talking about, and then taken in context of what we are talking about.

My comparison was not made, so that what people think, can actually change what is. The comparison was made to show what people want.

It was congress that asked the FCC to start the study, and I would guess that it was the people writing letters to their congressmen that got it started.

That is a seperate issue from just what watching violence on TV does to children, that to me has always been obvious, as I have 5 kids, and now there is a study that confirms this correlation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by nator, posted 05-03-2007 11:46 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:39 AM riVeRraT has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 277 of 310 (399149)
05-04-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:04 AM


Re: Offended beyond words
quote:
The study shows that. Maybe you only read the first few pages, and selectively chose to quote what suits you, but the study sites many other studys.
Plus, I do not need a study to know this. As a matter of fact, I am the one who hates studys. I only posted it for the benefit of those that live their lives by the study.

Oh, so you like and accept studies that you think support your personal opinions, but reject and hate those studies that don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:04 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:37 AM nator has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 278 of 310 (399150)
05-04-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by nator
05-03-2007 11:36 PM


Re: No to Censorship
http://www.fcc.gov/

Scroll down to 4/26/2007 and you can read it for yourself.

The actual study is 39 pages, and I am only up to about page 10, but let me post the statement made by others, that pretty much sums it up, and you can see there is a difference between studys, and that ravhin probably quoted the wrong study.
The bold letters will be mine.

STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN

Re: In the Matter of Violent Television Programming and Its Impact On Children, MB Docket No. 04-261

For decades, parents, healthcare professionals, and government officials have discussed and debated the impact of excessively violent programming on children. In fact almost 70% of respondents in a poll conducted for the Associated Press said there was too much violence on television. Four years ago, members of Congress asked the Commission to conduct an inquiry and to issue a report examining the harmful impact of violent video programming on children and what if anything Congress could do about it.
The concern about the potential impact of excessively violent programming is not surprising given that in the Children’s Television Act, Congress noted that by the time the average child is eighteen years old, he or she will have watched between 10,000 and 15,000 hours of television. As stated in our Report, children on average watch between two and four hours of TV per day. Even the youngest children – those age six and under – watch an average of two hours of television each day, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
To assess the impact of violent programming on children, the Commission reviewed numerous studies conducted by the medical and social science communities. Research on whether watching violent programming actually causes aggressive behavior in children is inconclusive. However, major studies, including those by the Surgeon General and the Federal Trade Commission, have found that exposure to violent content on TV is associated with an increase in aggressive or violent behavior in children. In addition, a joint statement by major medical associations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association identified some of the effects of exposure to violence as being emotional desensitization towards violence in real life and having a higher tendency for violent behavior later in life. In other words, the evidence does not prove causation, but it does demonstrate a strong correlation.
These findings make clear, and the Commission today affirms, that exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children.
When it comes to protecting their children from such harm, parents are the first and last line of defense. Thus, it is critical then that they have the necessary tools to protect their children. Today the Commission concludes that current blocking technologies and ratings systems are insufficient and do not fully serve the interest of promoting parental supervision and protecting children. Less than half of the TV sets in American households are capable of blocking content that is not suitable for children. Even parents who have TVs equipped with a V-chip need more help. According to a recent Zogby poll, 88% of parents did not use a V-chip or a cable blocking device. In part, blocking solutions don’t work because they are dependent on an imperfect television ratings system. Only 8% of respondents in the Zogby poll could correctly identify the ratings categories.
Clearly, steps should be taken to protect children from excessively violent programming. Some might say such action is long overdue. Parents need more tools to protect children from excessively violent programming. And, as the Commission finds today, they need tools that address the violent programming on all platforms—broadcast, cable and satellite.
I have long encouraged industry to give parents more direct control over the television content that comes into their homes. Broadcasters could reinstate the Family Hour at the beginning of prime-time, during which they would air only programs appropriate for children. Cable and satellite operators could enable parents to avoid purchasing channels that tend to show excessively violent programming by allowing them to purchase channels individually or in smaller bundles as they currently do for “premium channels” like HBO.
Whenever government considers such regulations, it must do so with great care and deliberation. For example, real life violence shown in a news story is not the same as fictional violence graphically depicted for purposes of “entertainment”. Congress specifically asked the Commission to consider whether it would be possible to restrict the showing of violent programming during the hours of the day when children are likely to be watching television. The United States Supreme Court has upheld this sort of time channeling in the context of indecent programming. In that context, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could apply regulations when the government’s interest was “substantial” and the restriction was “narrowly tailored.” The Supreme Court emphasized two factors: the “pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans,” and the government’s interests in the well-being of children and in supporting parental supervision of children.
The television industry has already developed definitions of violence that is used in their ratings system. Specifically, the TV Parental Guidelines developed by the television industry include ratings that indicate the presence of "fantasy violence," "no violence," "moderate violence," "intense violence," and "graphic violence." Thus, it appears that the industry agrees with some basic definition of violence in programming, at least for use with blocking technologies. I therefore question commenters’ arguments that violence can be defined sufficiently for ratings and blocking purposes, but not defined sufficiently for purposes of time channeling requirements.
Requiring cable and satellite television providers to offer programming in a more a la carte manner would be a more content neutral means for Congress to regulate violent programming and therefore would raise fewer constitutional issues. All of the versions of a la carte would keep government out of regulating content directly while enabling consumers, including parents, to receive the programming they want and believe to be appropriate for their families. For instance, cable operators already block any channel that a consumer requests to be blocked. One form of a la carte could simply require the cable operator to reimburse consumers for the channels they request to have blocked. While the Constitution protects the right to speak, it certainly doesn’t protect a right to get paid for that speech. Cable operators also could offer to block and reimburse only those channels not subject to time channeling restrictions.
Multichannel video distributors in other countries already sell cable channels in a more a la carte fashion. For instance, In Hong Kong, consumers can select and pay for only the channels they want. A family who wants to watch sports, movies, news and children’s programming can receive 15 free channels plus a selection of 11 additional digital channels including ESPN, HBO, CNN Headline News, National Geographic, Animal Planet, and Discovery for only $27.50 per month. To get the same channels in Washington, DC, it would cost $82.00 per month.
Similarly, in Canada, after buying basic cable, digital subscribers can buy channels individually or enjoy significant savings on a “5 pack”, a “10 pack”, or a “15 pack” of their own choosing.

It has long been my hope that the broadcast, cable and satellite industries would address content issues on their own, providing parents with effective tools to protect their children. Today the Commission, in response to specific Congressional questions, concludes that exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children and that Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children’s exposure to violent programming in a Constitutional way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by nator, posted 05-03-2007 11:36 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:47 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 290 by kuresu, posted 05-04-2007 12:31 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 279 of 310 (399151)
05-04-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by nator
05-04-2007 9:31 AM


Re: Offended beyond words
Oh, so you like and accept studies that you think support your personal opinions, but reject and hate those studies that don't.

Read again what you posted from me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:31 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:44 AM riVeRraT has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 280 of 310 (399152)
05-04-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:25 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
My comparison was not made, so that what people think, can actually change what is. The comparison was made to show what people want.

No Rat, this is what happened.

You said, "TV violence is bad for kids."

We said, "Prove it. Show us the statistics or the studies."

You then provided a link to a survey of American people's opinions and beliefs about the harm TV violence does to children.

That's not actual evidence, rat, that's just people's beliefs.

YOU posted it when we asked for evidence to support your claim that TV violence caused harm to children.

Why did YOU post it if YOU didn't think that people's opinions constituted evidence of the sort we were requesting?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:25 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:48 AM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 281 of 310 (399154)
05-04-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:37 AM


Re: Offended beyond words
I did, and I come to the same conclusion.

You said that you "hate" and distrust studies in general.

So, I am confused.

Are you posting the study because you believe it supports your argument, so therefore you think it is valid?

Or do you think it is just as invalid as all of the other hated studies, but since your opponents value studies, you thought you'd see if we accept it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:37 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 10:15 AM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 282 of 310 (399156)
05-04-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:35 AM


also from your source
In other words, the evidence does not prove causation, but it does demonstrate a strong correlation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:35 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 283 of 310 (399157)
05-04-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by nator
05-04-2007 9:39 AM


Re: No to Censorship
Why did YOU post it if YOU didn't think that people's opinions constituted evidence of the sort we were requesting?

The topic is, should the airwaves be more censored. I posted it to show that I an 80% of the American public think that there is too much violence on TV.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:39 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:51 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 284 of 310 (399158)
05-04-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:48 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
The topic is, should the airwaves be more censored. I posted it to show that I an 80% of the American public think that there is too much violence on TV.

Actually, you posted it in response to our repeated requests for evidence that TV violence causes harm to children.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that source doesn't do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:48 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 285 of 310 (399169)
05-04-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by nator
05-04-2007 9:44 AM


Re: Offended beyond words
Or do you think it is just as invalid as all of the other hated studies, but since your opponents value studies, you thought you'd see if we accept it?

Yes, I think it is stupid, because I think that violence on TV watched by children actually causes them to be more violent, and it is more than just a correlation.

But I will have to take what is out there, as people like you live and die by the study. In the words of my friend who took statistics in college, you can make the study. or the numbers say whatever you want them to say, with enough tweaking.

But I am not saying this about this study. I believe they did the best they could, but fall short of actually saying that watching violence on TV actually can be a cause.

Anyway, I think I, and the study has said enough. If the rest of you can't realize that it is a real problem, facing real Americans, and something needs to be done about it, then you guys are hypocrites.

Tell me, what is the difference between getting an abortion to control an unwanted pregnancy, and censoring the airwaves so that kids won't watch too much violent television?

People who get pregnant by "accident" IMO should really have more control over whether they have sex or not. But I have been told that is not going to happen so we should have abortion.

Yet, on the other hand, you guys tell me the root of kids who watch TV, when they really shouldn't, is the parents fault (the root of the cause). But we all know that this parental control is not going to happen, so what is the big deal about censorship?

Just like abortion, it is a great short-term solution to a real problem. Hypocrites.

Hey, in a perfect world, maybe people shouldn't be having irresponsible intercourse, and Hollywood shouldn't be promoting so much violence, but that is just not the world we live in, is it?

To me freedom of speech, is not a right to be irresponsible with what we are saying. Freedom of speech is to voice your opinion when the government, or anyone else trys to suppress it. But this should never be done at the cost of purposefully offending others (with intent to offend) or a license to show rated material to young children, who we know are watching TV.
Freedom of speech is supposed to be a positive thing, not a negative. Freedom of speech is to protect us from being lied to, and allowing us to speak the truth about things. It's not to allow you to be irresponsible with what you say. It is not a license to be an asshole, and that is what Hollywood is, most of the time, assholes.
It is also not a liscence for televangelists to lie to you either.

It seems they are using the first amendment to protect themselves to do shocking things that they can them make money off of. This level of shockingness has been steadily increasing since the inception of television, and gradually creeping into the minds of our youth.

Is it the end all to all our problems? No, it is a step in the right direction, that is all.

Having more control over what my kids watch over removing TV from my house is what I seek. Having commercials match the ratings of the TV show they are aired on is what I seek. This is not unreasonable.

This is all my opinion, say what you want. But nator is here, and she will quickly eat up the rest of this thread with her replies, so it will be over by the end of day. I have said my peace, and I hope that you would understand me, and where I am coming from.

Anyone who would use freedom of speech to act like an asshole, is well just that, and asshole. I would stay away from people like that. I think it is taking advantage of a right given to us.

Causation, correlation? What's the difference? Isn't a strong correlation alarming enough? Doesn't the youth of our nation need our protection? Plus the survey doesn't prove that it is not the causation.

You don't need a study to show that, when a group of kids get done watching a karate movie, then proceed to go into the living room and start kicking each other, until a real fight breaks out, to know just what caused it. Get real people. Then when the real violence starts, to watch how they react to it and handle it, is alarming.

It's hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys.
Take it away nator...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 9:44 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 10:47 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 291 by kuresu, posted 05-04-2007 12:37 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 293 by subbie, posted 05-04-2007 2:10 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019