It is currently Fri Jun 07, 2024 12:10 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 51
  [ 1522 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 51  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
FavreFan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72296
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Gawkers not going anywhere. The journalism itself will go on, the bad actors like Denton and that AJ prick are the ones who were most hurt by the lawsuit. Peter Thiel is one of the worst people on the planet, but I think the "this is very troubling" sentiment is overblown.

The Las Vegas paper story isn't a good analogy. That's 10x worse and probably shouldn't even be legal.


Here is the analogy. You have to vet your material through the super rich and connected.

But Gawker still isn't doing that. They are still running pieces mocking Thiel. That's why the analogy doesn't quite work and the sentiment with Gawker is overblown.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Last edited by FavreFan on Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89466
Location: To the left of my post
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Phil McCracken wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
he didn't sue them over nothing. You're forgetting that. They left themselves in a dumb position.

I am not forgetting that. I don't think Gawker is some bastion of great journalistic intent, but be careful what you wish for siding with a billionaire that wants to silence speech he doesn't like.


I think the more fucked up thing is that there are many people who aren't billionaires or don't have the backing of billionaires who had legitimate reasons to sue Gawker but lacked the resources to bump heads with them. I guess Gawker should have stuck to fucking with poor people.


Yep. It was not the girl's tape that brought them down. It took someone with resources. The rest of us are fair game.
What you seem to be ignoring here is that the ripple effect is that every company needs to be more careful about doing this with either the rich or the non-rich.

The ones who were also wronged by gawker are happy today. I don't think they are worried that a rich guy was behind it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72296
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Phil McCracken wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
he didn't sue them over nothing. You're forgetting that. They left themselves in a dumb position.

I am not forgetting that. I don't think Gawker is some bastion of great journalistic intent, but be careful what you wish for siding with a billionaire that wants to silence speech he doesn't like.


I think the more fucked up thing is that there are many people who aren't billionaires or don't have the backing of billionaires who had legitimate reasons to sue Gawker but lacked the resources to bump heads with them. I guess Gawker should have stuck to fucking with poor people.


Yep. It was not the girl's tape that brought them down. It took someone with resources. The rest of us are fair game.
What you seem to be ignoring here is that the ripple effect is that every company needs to be more careful about doing this with either the rich or the non-rich.

The ones who were also wronged by gawker are happy today. I don't think they are worried that a rich guy was behind it.

Exactly. Thiel will be more than happy to bankroll your lawsuit too Phil if Gawker posts a video of you fucking someone you shouldn't be.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Phil McCracken
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:08 am
Posts: 14018
Location: Underneath the Grace of Timothy Richard Tebow
pizza_Place: ------
FavreFan wrote:
Exactly. Thiel will be more than happy to bankroll your lawsuit too Phil if Gawker posts a video of you fucking someone you shouldn't be.

Oh thank god for the benevolence of an idiot billionaire.

_________________
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rpb is wrong. Phil McCracken is useful.

Chus wrote:
RPB is right. You suck. :lol:
Top
 Profile  
 
WaitingforRuffcorn
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Phil McCracken wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
he didn't sue them over nothing. You're forgetting that. They left themselves in a dumb position.

I am not forgetting that. I don't think Gawker is some bastion of great journalistic intent, but be careful what you wish for siding with a billionaire that wants to silence speech he doesn't like.
As long as the suit is valid, and this clearly was, then siding with a billionaire isn't bad.


It was not Thiel's suit. He backed Hogan. Here is why it is troubling. What if the Kochs are mad at say Mother Jones or someone else? They could pull the same move as Thiel and back any type of lawsuit against the company. There is a clear playbook now on how the ultra-rich can go after their media critics.

And given the state of most media companies now it would not take must more than a threat to back off.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Last edited by WaitingforRuffcorn on Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
WaitingforRuffcorn
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Phil McCracken wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
he didn't sue them over nothing. You're forgetting that. They left themselves in a dumb position.

I am not forgetting that. I don't think Gawker is some bastion of great journalistic intent, but be careful what you wish for siding with a billionaire that wants to silence speech he doesn't like.


I think the more fucked up thing is that there are many people who aren't billionaires or don't have the backing of billionaires who had legitimate reasons to sue Gawker but lacked the resources to bump heads with them. I guess Gawker should have stuck to fucking with poor people.


Yep. It was not the girl's tape that brought them down. It took someone with resources. The rest of us are fair game.
What you seem to be ignoring here is that the ripple effect is that every company needs to be more careful about doing this with either the rich or the non-rich.

The ones who were also wronged by gawker are happy today. I don't think they are worried that a rich guy was behind it.


Who defines "careful with what they are doing"? Clearly, it's going to be billionaires.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89466
Location: To the left of my post
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
It was not Thiel's suit. He backed Hogan. Here is why it is troubling. What if the Kochs are mad at say Mother Jones or someone else? They could pull the same move and Thiel and back any type of lawsuit against the company. There is a clear playbook now on how the ultra-rich can go after their media critics.
If the suit is valid who cares?

Anyone, rich or non-rich helping finance valid lawsuits is not a problem.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
WaitingforRuffcorn
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
It was not Thiel's suit. He backed Hogan. Here is why it is troubling. What if the Kochs are mad at say Mother Jones or someone else? They could pull the same move and Thiel and back any type of lawsuit against the company. There is a clear playbook now on how the ultra-rich can go after their media critics.
If the suit is valid who cares?

Anyone, rich or non-rich helping finance valid lawsuits is not a problem.


If the suit is valid depends entirely on the jury at the time. And as I said it would not even take valid suits at this point because most media companies are not in the position to fight.

An entire media company was shutdown by a couple of bad actors at one of several different divisions because it made the wrong person mad. Yay. Free press.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89466
Location: To the left of my post
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
It was not Thiel's suit. He backed Hogan. Here is why it is troubling. What if the Kochs are mad at say Mother Jones or someone else? They could pull the same move and Thiel and back any type of lawsuit against the company. There is a clear playbook now on how the ultra-rich can go after their media critics.
If the suit is valid who cares?

Anyone, rich or non-rich helping finance valid lawsuits is not a problem.


If the suit is valid depends entirely on the jury at the time. And as I said it would not even take valid suits at this point because most media companies are not in the position to fight.

An entire media company was shutdown by a couple of bad actors at one of several different divisions because it made the wrong person mad. Yay. Free press.
This was a valid suit. Agree or disagree?

If agree, end of discussion. If disagree, explain why.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
WaitingforRuffcorn
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
It was not Thiel's suit. He backed Hogan. Here is why it is troubling. What if the Kochs are mad at say Mother Jones or someone else? They could pull the same move and Thiel and back any type of lawsuit against the company. There is a clear playbook now on how the ultra-rich can go after their media critics.
If the suit is valid who cares?

Anyone, rich or non-rich helping finance valid lawsuits is not a problem.


If the suit is valid depends entirely on the jury at the time. And as I said it would not even take valid suits at this point because most media companies are not in the position to fight.

An entire media company was shutdown by a couple of bad actors at one of several different divisions because it made the wrong person mad. Yay. Free press.
This was a valid suit. Agree or disagree?

If agree, end of discussion. If disagree, explain why.


It's not the end of discussion because you deem it to be so based on the "validity" of the suit. Even if the lawsuit was "valid" I don't believe that the entire company should have been destroyed as a result.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89466
Location: To the left of my post
Sounds like you think it is valid.

Unless you are saying it is wrong for someone to contribute to a fund to help with valid lawsuits, and I doubt you are, then the conversation begins and ends with that. It doesn't matter if the person is poor or rich.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
Curious Hair
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54477
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/opinion/peter-thiel-the-online-privacy-debate-wont-end-with-gawker.html?smid=tw-share

Thiel sums it all up perfectly here. Gawker kept on gambling and lost when someone who was finally bigger and stronger than them came around.


"Why Peter Thiel Suing Gawker Is Actually Good," by Peter Thiel

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72296
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Curious Hair wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/opinion/peter-thiel-the-online-privacy-debate-wont-end-with-gawker.html?smid=tw-share

Thiel sums it all up perfectly here. Gawker kept on gambling and lost when someone who was finally bigger and stronger than them came around.


"Why Peter Thiel Suing Gawker Is Actually Good," by Peter Thiel

:lol:

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
pittmike
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39925
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Phil McCracken wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
he didn't sue them over nothing. You're forgetting that. They left themselves in a dumb position.

I am not forgetting that. I don't think Gawker is some bastion of great journalistic intent, but be careful what you wish for siding with a billionaire that wants to silence speech he doesn't like.


I think the more fucked up thing is that there are many people who aren't billionaires or don't have the backing of billionaires who had legitimate reasons to sue Gawker but lacked the resources to bump heads with them. I guess Gawker should have stuck to fucking with poor people.


That is where my head was.

_________________
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Top
 Profile  
 
pittmike
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39925
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
It was not Thiel's suit. He backed Hogan. Here is why it is troubling. What if the Kochs are mad at say Mother Jones or someone else? They could pull the same move and Thiel and back any type of lawsuit against the company. There is a clear playbook now on how the ultra-rich can go after their media critics.
If the suit is valid who cares?

Anyone, rich or non-rich helping finance valid lawsuits is not a problem.


If the suit is valid depends entirely on the jury at the time. And as I said it would not even take valid suits at this point because most media companies are not in the position to fight.

An entire media company was shutdown by a couple of bad actors at one of several different divisions because it made the wrong person mad. Yay. Free press.



That is not true at all. Well before a jury takes it a set of reviews and motions are done before a judge to determine standing and merit.

_________________
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Top
 Profile  
 
WaitingforRuffcorn
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
pittmike wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
It was not Thiel's suit. He backed Hogan. Here is why it is troubling. What if the Kochs are mad at say Mother Jones or someone else? They could pull the same move and Thiel and back any type of lawsuit against the company. There is a clear playbook now on how the ultra-rich can go after their media critics.
If the suit is valid who cares?

Anyone, rich or non-rich helping finance valid lawsuits is not a problem.


If the suit is valid depends entirely on the jury at the time. And as I said it would not even take valid suits at this point because most media companies are not in the position to fight.

An entire media company was shutdown by a couple of bad actors at one of several different divisions because it made the wrong person mad. Yay. Free press.



That is not true at all. Well before a jury takes it a set of reviews and motions are done before a judge to determine standing and merit.


Valid as in what the suit alleges is true depends on the jury.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.
Top
 Profile  
 
Hussra
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16147
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Martes gigante! Univision pays $140 mil for all Gawker media properties, $50 mil over Ziff-Davis' rumored initial bid

http://www.recode.net/2016/8/16/1250400 ... 35-million
Top
 Profile  
 
Matches Malone
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:33 am
Posts: 6189
Location: Limbo
pizza_Place: Positanos on 55th Street
Hussra wrote:
Martes gigante! Univision pays $140 mil for all Gawker media properties, $50 mil over Ziff-Davis' rumored initial bid

http://www.recode.net/2016/8/16/1250400 ... 35-million

The return of Don Francisco.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89466
Location: To the left of my post
Sounds like Univision doesn't want Gawker.com. :lol:

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
Hussra
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16147
pizza_Place: Salerno's
that doesn't make any sense. even if Univision doesn't wanna go forward with gawker.com and gawker branding--cuz of lawsuit pr or whatever--they still take the domain and control it. auto-redirect it to whatever global landing page they move to for the former gawker properties.

last thing you do is throw the gawker.com domain back into the BR trust and let someone else come along, scoop it up for peanuts and then hijack all that traffic to their own content.
Top
 Profile  
 
Hussra
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16147
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Hussra
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16147
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Phil McCracken
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:08 am
Posts: 14018
Location: Underneath the Grace of Timothy Richard Tebow
pizza_Place: ------
Hussra wrote:
Image

:lol: That's the kind of business savvy you can expect at Fox News. One of the only women at the station Ailes found to ugly to harass!

_________________
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rpb is wrong. Phil McCracken is useful.

Chus wrote:
RPB is right. You suck. :lol:
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72296
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-ope ... socialflow

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89466
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next-week-1785455712?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
:alien:

Maybe Deadspin can be great again.

This really is the best of all outcomes. Gawker and Denton get destroyed. The rest of them can live on.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
Dave In Champaign
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:55 pm
Posts: 3287
pizza_Place: Olde Silver Tavern, Manalapan, NJ [R.I.P.?]
Whether you loved Gawker or hated it, we can all agree on one thing: billionaires deciding what media outlets are allowed to say, is Very Good

_________________
The Bulls haven't done anything wrong, and they're not going to do anything wrong.
Top
 Profile  
 
America
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
If Jezebel and Gizmodo meet similar fates I wont complain either. Deadspin is really the only site that deserves to live on.
Top
 Profile  
 
Curious Hair
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54477
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
America wrote:
If Jezebel and Gizmodo meet similar fates I wont complain either. Deadspin is really the only site that deserves to live on.

All the blogs except Gawker itself will continue.

The real reason Univision killed gawker.com is probably that it's redundant with that Fusion site of theirs that no one reads.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
Top
 Profile  
 
Joe Orr Road Rod
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 77533
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Dave In Champaign wrote:
Whether you loved Gawker or hated it, we can all agree on one thing: billionaires deciding what media outlets are allowed to say, is Very Good



Really, Dave, do you think that's what happened here? Is it better when Denton is the rich guy running over a poor college student?

_________________
Communists are just people who are terrible at capitalism.
Top
 Profile  
 
Phil McCracken
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:08 am
Posts: 14018
Location: Underneath the Grace of Timothy Richard Tebow
pizza_Place: ------
Dave In Champaign wrote:
Whether you loved Gawker or hated it, we can all agree on one thing: billionaires deciding what media outlets are allowed to say, is Very Good

Image

_________________
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rpb is wrong. Phil McCracken is useful.

Chus wrote:
RPB is right. You suck. :lol:
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 51
  [ 1522 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 51  Next

Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group