|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| I agree, we can really make a valid comparison between The Netherlands (the West) and your typically backward Islamic cultures using just this one incident. Good one there OTOH, breathing new life into the tired old moral equivalency argument |
But this thread isn't about the Islamic world overall, it's about one particular incident, which is being held up as symptomatic of how bad Islam is.
If you want to start a thread about the all-around badness of Islam, go ahead. I might even agree with a lot of what gets said. But I'd suggest that you find examples of things that don't also happen in the west. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote:
| Quote: |
Quote:
A. got into an argument with police officers on bicycle in Amsterdam on 7 June. He performed a Nazi salute, called a police officer a "rotten *beep*," and called out "I hate your queen. The queen of the Netherlands is a *beep*."
He then spoke insultingly of the monarch using sexually explicit language and racist comments.
Not sympathetic. Neither it is too comparable to the ESL Teacher, who clearly meant no offense.
|
So you are unsympathetic toward people who get jailed for expressing uncomplimentary opionions about public figures, because they clearly intended to give offense? Not exactly a ringing defense of free speech there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| I agree, we can really make a valid comparison between The Netherlands (the West) and your typically backward Islamic cultures using just this one incident. Good one there OTOH, breathing new life into the tired old moral equivalency argument |
But this thread isn't about the Islamic world overall, it's about one particular incident, which is being held up as symptomatic of how bad Islam is.
You want to start a thread about the all-around badness of Islam, go ahead. I might even agree with a lot of what gets said. But I'd suggest that you find examples of things that don't also happen in the west. |
Could you provide some newsreel footage of thousands of Dutchmen rioting in the streets screaming for Regilio A's blood? That would be a nice touch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
A fine and/or jail time is not the same as corporal or capital punishment. Don't even try to compare them.
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| I agree, we can really make a valid comparison between The Netherlands (the West) and your typically backward Islamic cultures using just this one incident. Good one there OTOH, breathing new life into the tired old moral equivalency argument |
But this thread isn't about the Islamic world overall, it's about one particular incident, which is being held up as symptomatic of how bad Islam is.
If you want to start a thread about the all-around badness of Islam, go ahead. I might even agree with a lot of what gets said. But I'd suggest that you find examples of things that don't also happen in the west. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A fine and/or jail time is not the same as corporal or capital punishment. |
But the British teacher isn't getting corporal or capital punishment. She's getting jail time that's roughly equivalent to what the guy in Holland got.
Point taken, Leslie, about the reaction of the Dutch public being considerably more charitable than that of the mobs in Sudan. I'd still say, though, that it would be nice to see more widespread outrage from the citizens of a professed democracy when someone gets sent to jail simply for expressing political opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is the kind of incident that has one potential victim, but many potential repercussions. That victim in this case is a 54-year-old schoolteacher who, newly arrived in Sudan and naive as so many are about Islam, meets with the primitive nature of Islam.
For we can all recognize and instantly grasp, the teacher's innocence, just as we could all see the innocence of those Bulgarian nurses held for eight years by the Libyans, raped and tortured and threatened repeatedly with execution. And we know the story, of how she allowed her little seven-year-old charges to vote on the name they wanted to give the little teddy bear, little seven-year-old Muslim children not yet sufficiently brainwashed into every element of Islam, just the way some of the younger children, the American soldiers in Iraq have found, are still....still touchingly sweet, human, recognizable in their behavior, even genuinely friendly and grateful.
But just give those children a little time, a little more socializing into Islam, a few more years learning from their elders, and soon enough they will learn to be otherwise. They will learn to be like their elders are now, shifty, meretricious, hostile.
The innocence of this lady was also the innocence of Daniel Pearl, who was ignorant of Islam and Muslims though he had written about Muslims, and had grown up in a family with a mother who recalled, a bit too nostalgically, stories about her life in Baghdad as a Jew. (She left Baghdad as a small child, and no doubt the stories were those of her parents, who remembered only the good, at the very time when, because of the British and the aftermath of the British presence, Jews in Baghdad had temporarily flourished or, later, had at least been left alone -- until the "Farhud" of June 1-2, 1941, when hundreds were killed.) Pearl was unschooled in Islam and too trusting. And then there was that young American boy, who grew up in a household with a father, Michael Berg, who was sure everyone in the world was fine, save possibly American right-wing capitalists, and gave his son the same terminally naive worldview. That son, Nicholas Berg, flew up, on his own, mind you, to Iraq to "help" the "people of Iraq" in building up their country. And for his pains, he was decapitated, to shouts of Allahu Akbar, on camera.
The schoolteacher in Khartoum taught not in a primitive village, but in a school for the children of Western diplomats and of the Sudanese elite -- akin to the American School in Kuwait City and other such schools, especially Christian-run schools, all over the Muslim world. The Muslim elite of course is eager to send its children to such schools, recognizing that schools run, say, by Jesuits in Baghdad, or nuns in Pakistan, are likely to provide an education far superior to any offered by a Muslim-run school. That eagerness to have one's own children attend schools run by Americans or Europeans, often Catholic schools, and then to attend university in the West, does not translate into any recognition that something must be wrong with Islam and societies suffused with Islam -- and only the denial of such possibilities will force Muslims to begin to think in those terms, as they should, as we must create the conditions that will force them to do so.
The poor lady is no doubt very upset. But the case, from the viewpoint of Infidels, and the close-up look at the behavior of those screaming crowds calling for her death -- that is good, that is useful. That is the kind of thing Western television, which does not know how to cover something unseen -- the texts and tenets of Islam -- will be sure to cover.
Very welcome.
The Teddy Bear Incident.
It's like "Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead." There is an individual life at stake -- the life of someone with whom all of us can identify, and whom none of us can fault. We might, any one of us, in the West, have asked our seven-year-old charges to "name that bear." We might, sweetly, have thought -- "Muhammad is the name of three-quarters of the kids in the class, so why not let them name the bear Muhammad?"
We might. Once. But not now. Now we hear the screams for death and won't forget them. We know that the ludicrous government of an absurd place called the Sudan has tried and sentenced this lady. We are no longer in the mood, as we might have been, to take such places seriously. Or at least, to treat them with any respect. Why should we? |
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018986.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Kuros wrote:
| Quote: |
Quote:
A. got into an argument with police officers on bicycle in Amsterdam on 7 June. He performed a Nazi salute, called a police officer a "rotten *beep*," and called out "I hate your queen. The queen of the Netherlands is a *beep*."
He then spoke insultingly of the monarch using sexually explicit language and racist comments.
Not sympathetic. Neither it is too comparable to the ESL Teacher, who clearly meant no offense.
|
So you are unsympathetic toward people who get jailed for expressing uncomplimentary opionions about public figures, because they clearly intended to give offense? Not exactly a ringing defense of free speech there. |
No, no. You don't get to twist my words.
I'm unsympathetic towards people who get jailed for a) 7 days for b)harassing police officers c) without apparent provocation by d) giving the Nazi salute e) in the Netherlands while shouting f) sexual indignities about the Queen of the Netherlands.
Don't you see how my sentence is different from yours?
And, I am endorsing his freedom of speech, OTOH. He's allowed to say what he has said. He's also obligated to spend a few days in jail.
Now take any one of these: a), b), c), or d), e), f) away from the situation, and I would start to become more sympathetic.
OTOH, I suggest you compare freedom of speech with defamation.
| Quote: |
| Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. |
The Netherlands had lese majeste on the criminal law books. We don't have such a law in America, but then again, this guy definitely was not in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Point taken, Leslie, about the reaction of the Dutch public being considerably more charitable than that of the mobs in Sudan. I'd still say, though, that it would be nice to see more widespread outrage from the citizens of a professed democracy when someone gets sent to jail simply for expressing political opinions. |
What you are talking about is more akin to those arcane laws still on the books in many places. I don't think we ought to compare such things to the law now being enforced in the Sudan --- one that is very much alive in the Islamic world and is a great part of what is the mainstay of its so-called civilization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is exactly how the multiculti's distract issues they find uncomfortable. Let me help you all.
Both legal outcomes are bad. They are not equally bad. And both do not fit into a much larger and much more dangerous pattern of behavior by that group. The Dutch generally and consistently respect the civil liberties of their population. The Dutch example is the exception to the rule. It is increasingly looking like a firm belief in islam is best described as a mental disorder that causes instability and violent desires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros corrected:
| Quote: |
| I'm unsympathetic towards people who get jailed for a) 7 days for b)harassing police officers c) without apparent provocation by d) giving the Nazi salute e) in the Netherlands while shouting f) sexual indignities about the Queen of the Netherlands. |
I'm with Kuros on this score. That act was clearly intentional and malicious; the British schoolteacher's was not.
If anyone should be put in jail in Khartoum (other than the entire government supporting genocide of its own people) it is the fink-rat parent who didn't have the common decency to discuss her concern with the teacher before going to the police.
That parent reminds me of the Dutch person who finked on the Franks when they were in hiding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I once went to a Halloween costume party dressed as Jesus. Robe, big ass cross, crown of thorns, hammer and nails. I spent the evening handing out nails as "treats". Was it funny? Absolutely. Was it in poor taste? Hell yes. Some people were offended but they understood my point.
Name a bear Allah and get punished. Get gang raped and receive 200 lashes. I used to think Islam was truely a great religion. Now I'm more inclined to just write it off as a genetic aberration of a few nutters. I vote we seal the boarders with the muslim world. Give'em better weapons and training. Then sit back and enjoy the show.
I know I'm painting with a pretty broad brush but really, the muslim world has done nothing lately to change my thinking. Everyone says we need to focus on the "moderate muslims". But, where the hell are they?
As for the animist christians and other lunatic groups in Africa. They are just a product of a failed continent. An entire continent of 4th world countries can't be expected to produce rational human beings. Again that is an area of the globe that is looking pretty hopeless to me.
Sad thing is I really used to think the world had a duty toward Africa and other disadvantaged nations/areas. Now I'm just burned out on the whole mess. I vote everyone just step back, take a deep breath, watch it implode, then step back in when all the nonsense has been killed off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote:
| Quote: |
Not exactly a ringing defense of free speech there.
No, no. You don't get to twist my words.
I'm unsympathetic towards people who get jailed for a) 7 days for b)harassing police officers c) without apparent provocation by d) giving the Nazi salute e) in the Netherlands while shouting f) sexual indignities about the Queen of the Netherlands.
Don't you see how my sentence is different from yours? |
So, you defend free speech, except for people who insult the Queen of Holland and police officers by giving the Nazi salute? I dunno, those are some pretty severe qualifications, I'd say.
As for it being in Holland, well, it seems to me that that amounts to saying "well, it's the law in Holland, so what can ya do?" But you could make that argument about ANY law in ANY country. Well, it's the law so what are ya gonna do?
It seems to me the real question is whether a country that claims to be a democracy should have a law like that on the books to begin with.
| Quote: |
OTOH, I suggest you compare freedom of speech with defamation.
Quote:
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred.
|
Well, I always assumed that defamation involved saying untrue things that are likely to damage someone's reputation, ie. "Joe Blow is running a child porn ring in his basement"(assuming Mr. Blow isn't actually doing that.) But given the way words like "Nazi" are tossed around political discourse these days, I hardly think the guy in Holland was seriously accusing either the cop or the Queen of having been an actual Nazi.
| Quote: |
| The Netherlands had lese majeste on the criminal law books. We don't have such a law in America, but then again, this guy definitely was not in America. |
Again, the question is not whether these laws exist in the Netherlands, but whether they should exist. And, if they do exist, whether they should be enforced. And, whether a Muslim country enforcing laws against insulting the Prophet is really that much different than a monarchist country enforcing laws against lese majeste.
Last edited by On the other hand on Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
Point taken, Leslie, about the reaction of the Dutch public being considerably more charitable than that of the mobs in Sudan. I'd still say, though, that it would be nice to see more widespread outrage from the citizens of a professed democracy when someone gets sent to jail simply for expressing political opinions. |
What you are talking about is more akin to those arcane laws still on the books in many places. |
Well you realize that once a law gets enforced, it can't really be considered arcane anymore, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Kuros wrote:
| Quote: |
Not exactly a ringing defense of free speech there.
No, no. You don't get to twist my words.
I'm unsympathetic towards people who get jailed for a) 7 days for b)harassing police officers c) without apparent provocation by d) giving the Nazi salute e) in the Netherlands while shouting f) sexual indignities about the Queen of the Netherlands.
Don't you see how my sentence is different from yours? |
[1]So, you defend free speech, except for people who insult the Queen of Holland and police officers by giving the Nazi salute? I dunno, those are some pretty severe qualifications, I'd say.
[2]As for it being in Holland, well, it seems to me that that amounts to saying "well, it's the law in Holland, so what can ya do?" But you could make that argument about ANY law in ANY country. Well, it's the law so what are ya gonna do?
[3]It seems to me the real question is whether a country that claims to be a democracy should have a law like that on the books to begin with. |
I can see arguments on both side of this affair. As I said, I'm not sympathetic; that doesn't mean that I think what the Netherlands did was 100% perfect.
Response to [1]: That's a misunderstanding of my position. I defend the right to free speech. But this case is about consequences of exercising the right to free expression. Wiki has a decent presentation of the premise, so to save time, I'll lift from it.
| Quote: |
| Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. |
This is the principal purpose of the right to free speech. There was no censorship involved in the case from Holland you mentioned. But admittedly, the reason censorship is prohibited is to serve broader values.
| Quote: |
For example, Justice McLachlin of the Canadian Supreme Court identified the following in R. v. Keegstra, a 1990 case on hate speech:
a) Free speech promotes "The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions" and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms
b) It promotes a marketplace of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth
c) It is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualisation of speakers and listeners
d) It is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression. |
The purpose of free speech is to promote better governance and a free exchange of ideas. It is emphatically not designed to protect recklessly and deliberately offensive speech.
Recently, Dr. Watson has come under fire for suggesting that there may be an underlying genetic reason for why Africa is underdeveloped. This speech is protected under the freedom of speech, because he asserted it calmly to promote discussion. However, if Dr. Watson had used his ideas to assert that, "We clearly need more lynchings of those of African ancestry," this speech would not be protected. Should certain individuals protest in a Western country, demanding that certain individuals be killed, this is not protected free speech. Their words will not be censored, but neither will their threats be tolerated.
[2] That this occurred in Holland is not important because I think Holland is innately more free (although it is) than most countries and thus immune from criticism. But when you insult the Queen with sexual epithets in Holland, using the Nazi salute, you are putting yourself in grave danger.
(If this incident had happened in America, and someone was screaming 'Osama Bin Laden is the greatest!' while stomping on an American flag, the result would have been different. The cops probably would have stomped on him and/or charged him with assault and public intoxication, and then thrown him in jail, telling all the other inmates what he had been doing.)
The speech was inciteful (almost wrote insightful, which it certainly was not!) and deliberately derogatory. It was not meant as political commentary! It was not meant to provoke discussion on why the Queen, to preserve the dignity of her country, should not sell herself for sex!
The cops did not touch the man. They arrested him. They may have done it for his protection. Since he was intoxicated, and since the political environment in Holland is not exactly pro-foreigner these days, the man was in danger of injury and was a disturbance to the peace. There is a strong argument that the cops, in order to keep the general peace, should have arrested him. Although perhaps a week was too long, and a full day of incarceration would have been enough. I'll agree with you on that score.
[3] Wiki has a good list here. But I want to point out that in the US, there is no restriction on speech, per se. But it is recognized that certain speech will result in certain consequences, and this is not a violation of the First Amendment.
| wiki wrote: |
Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:
Defamation (slander and libel)
Product defamation (criticism of commercial products; sometimes called product libel or product disparagement; for example, the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act)
Obscenity
Lying in court (perjury)
Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (subjudicy).
Speaking publicly without a permit
Speaking publicly outside of a free speech zone
Limits on the size of public demonstrations
Profanity on television
Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence
Noise pollution
Speech that contains a copyright infringement
Company secrets (trade secrets), such as how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Seven herbs and spices of KFC chicken)
Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc.
Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.[2]
Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater
Fighting words doctrine:(U.S. 1942) "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"
Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government
Blasphemy is illegal in several Western countries (freedom of religion as well as speech could be given here)
The first clause of UK's Terrorism Act 2006 punishes "Encouragement of terrorism" with up to seven years in jail.
In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group"), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia.
In Finland, a new copyright law was enacted in October 2005, which prohibited "services making possible or facilitating the circumvention of effective technical [copy prevention] measures". (See 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code) |
I'm using custom here not as a defense: 'it doesn't matter what is done, but what should be done' (Justice Holmes). But I do not understand where your standard for 'whether a democracy should have such a law,' might come from. After all, most democracies have some asterisk next to free speech that says, "There are certain things you might say that are inappropriate which will be punished by law."
| OTOH wrote: |
| Quote: |
OTOH, I suggest you compare freedom of speech with defamation.
Quote:
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred.
|
Well, I always assumed that defamation involved saying untrue things that are likely to damage someone's reputation, ie. "Joe Blow is running a child porn ring in his basement"(assuming Mr. Blow isn't actually doing that.) But given the way words like "Nazi" are tossed around political discourse these days, I hardly think the guy in Holland was seriously accusing either the cop or the Queen of having been an actual Nazi. |
Right, and this is not a civil defamation claim. Defamation was simply offered as a possible consequence whereupon free speech would not protect someone.
Note that in the article, the court which issued the sentence did do a 'qualified privilege' analysis. It determined that what was said about the Queen was not legitimate political criticism, but was just inciteful and belligerently offensive.
| OTOH wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Netherlands had lese majeste on the criminal law books. We don't have such a law in America, but then again, this guy definitely was not in America. |
Again, the question is not whether these laws exist in the Netherlands, but whether they should exist. And, if they do exist, whether they should be enforced. And, whether a Muslim country enforcing laws against insulting the Prophet is really that much different than a monarchist country enforcing laws against lese majeste. |
Alright, well the greatest difference between these two cases is that the teacher did not know she was being disrespectful. Further, her students suggested the name of the bear. Its not actually that she insulted the Prophet, but that she did not forbid her students from "insulting the prophet."
But, in the Dutch case, the intoxicated individual was deliberately using the most offensive expressions he could directly to individuals who represented the authority of law.
There is a radical difference between the cases, even if we presume both laws to be correct and worth enforcing. And I do not have a problem with a law in an Islamic country that forbids insult of the Prophet! (I believe such a law might be useful for preventing violence) But I would hope that some allowance would be made for intent: after all, how could a statement be meant as an insult if the person meant no disrespect? Secondly, I would not expect foreigners to enforce such laws, much less would it be correct for them to be punished for not doing.
And no, ultimately, there are not two radically different standards for two different cultures, OTOH. Which is why, under my analysis, the events that happened in the Sudan are so disgraceful. The woman was clearly discriminated against for an innocent act for which she should not be held responsible.
In the Dutch case, the foreigner practically begged the cops to arrest him, and the court could not but enforce a law clearly violated. But in the Sudanese affair, the law against insulting the Prophet was deliberately manipulated to punish a foreigner who had done nothing wrong (of which she should have been aware). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
Point taken, Leslie, about the reaction of the Dutch public being considerably more charitable than that of the mobs in Sudan. I'd still say, though, that it would be nice to see more widespread outrage from the citizens of a professed democracy when someone gets sent to jail simply for expressing political opinions. |
What you are talking about is more akin to those arcane laws still on the books in many places. |
Well you realize that once a law gets enforced, it can't really be considered arcane anymore, right? |
Wrong. In the Dutch case they probably had to go looking for the law. "There must be something we can get this asshole on."
In the Sudan authorities didn't have to look very deep into their books to nail the poor woman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
