|
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 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| So you agree that this affects both parties then? Okay, so we are both on the same page. |
Yes, absolutely: 96% Republican, 4% Democrat.
And as Joseph Stalin so astutely pointed out in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, a change in quantity leads to a change in quality.
Glad we could be on the same page. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And how about the first thread, in which more than a dozen Democracts went to bat for this convicted sex offender and gave him a job? Enabling a sex offender puts one on par with him or her. |
Maybe, but giving someone a job isn't enabling a sex offender, it's just... giving them a job. Unless the employment in question is something along the lines of a school teacher or day care worker, I guess. In this case, though, it wasn't. |
He can continue his sexual predatory behavior from a position of power and influence now. Whereas if he were "named" and "shamed" and fired, then he'd just be another creep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And how about the first thread, in which more than a dozen Democracts went to bat for this convicted sex offender and gave him a job? Enabling a sex offender puts one on par with him or her. |
Maybe, but giving someone a job isn't enabling a sex offender, it's just... giving them a job. Unless the employment in question is something along the lines of a school teacher or day care worker, I guess. In this case, though, it wasn't. |
He can continue his sexual predatory behavior from a position of power and influence now. Whereas if he were "named" and "shamed" and fired, then he'd just be another creep. |
And with all his idle time, he'd be more likely to offend again. That is why work is considered rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
The scapegoating and demonization of an entire segment of society is a step on the way to fascism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And how about the first thread, in which more than a dozen Democracts went to bat for this convicted sex offender and gave him a job? Enabling a sex offender puts one on par with him or her. |
Maybe, but giving someone a job isn't enabling a sex offender, it's just... giving them a job. Unless the employment in question is something along the lines of a school teacher or day care worker, I guess. In this case, though, it wasn't. |
He can continue his sexual predatory behavior from a position of power and influence now. Whereas if he were "named" and "shamed" and fired, then he'd just be another creep. |
And with all his idle time, he'd be more likely to offend again. That is why work is considered rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
The scapegoating and demonization of an entire segment of society is a step on the way to fascism. |
He can find work as a garbage collector or something. But he should not be in a position of power and shielded from his actions. He is far more likely to offend again since he got away with it.
I don't know about you but I find nothing wrong with shaming and naming pedophiles. When you commit a crime you should go to jail. That is not scapegoating nor demonization. You do the crime you do the time
Interesting that you are arguing that this convicted pedophile should not face any more censure then he has. If he was a Republican you'd be insisting that he get kicked out.
How's the Bush trial coming along by the way? Jury due back any day with a verdict soon? Oh wait... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And how about the first thread, in which more than a dozen Democracts went to bat for this convicted sex offender and gave him a job? Enabling a sex offender puts one on par with him or her. |
Maybe, but giving someone a job isn't enabling a sex offender, it's just... giving them a job. Unless the employment in question is something along the lines of a school teacher or day care worker, I guess. In this case, though, it wasn't. |
He can continue his sexual predatory behavior from a position of power and influence now. Whereas if he were "named" and "shamed" and fired, then he'd just be another creep. |
Given he's clearly been "named and shamed" based on the fact that you're here talking about him, I really don't see how the fact that he happens to be employed somehow allows him to "stealth sexually predate." He's very clearly well known for his crime, given a total stranger like you knows of it.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| He is far more likely to offend again since he got away with it. |
He didn't "get away" with it, he spent years in prison. Getting a decent job after leaving prison isn't "getting away" with a crime, it's serving out your punishment then moving on with your life.
If anything, the substantial scrutiny that has come upon him because of this "scandal" makes him less likely to reoffend, not more likely.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I don't know about you but I find nothing wrong with shaming and naming pedophiles. |
No one is objecting to "naming and shaming" him; he's very clearly all ready been named and shamed, a process you're here continuing.
We're just saying naming and shaming doesn't need to include a total ban on decent employment. The idea that you need to suffer forever and at best be a "garbage man" because you made a mistake is silly.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Interesting that you are arguing that this convicted pedophile should not face any more censure then he has. |
Censure him all you want, but when you say someone is an enabler of pedophilia because they dare to hire someone who was convicted of and served their time for it, you're stretching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
He can find work as a garbage collector or something. But he should not be in a position of power and shielded from his actions. He is far more likely to offend again since he got away with it.
I don't know about you but I find nothing wrong with shaming and naming pedophiles. When you commit a crime you should go to jail. That is not scapegoating nor demonization. You do the crime you do the time. |
He went to jail. He did his time. The judge did not give him a life sentence as you seem to want to here.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Interesting that you are arguing that this convicted pedophile should not face any more censure then he has. If he was a Republican you'd be insisting that he get kicked out. |
You've got no basis for that statement whatsoever.
Since you apparently missed it, I'll repost:
| Quote: |
| I got no love for the Democratic Party, either. |
Perhaps you feel that that one's party affiliation should determine how one is treated for a crime, but I don't.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| How's the Bush trial coming along by the way? Jury due back any day with a verdict soon? Oh wait... |
It figures that since you're getting whupped so bad in this argument, you'd try to change the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And how about the first thread, in which more than a dozen Democracts went to bat for this convicted sex offender and gave him a job? Enabling a sex offender puts one on par with him or her. |
Maybe, but giving someone a job isn't enabling a sex offender, it's just... giving them a job. Unless the employment in question is something along the lines of a school teacher or day care worker, I guess. In this case, though, it wasn't. |
He can continue his sexual predatory behavior from a position of power and influence now. Whereas if he were "named" and "shamed" and fired, then he'd just be another creep. |
Given he's clearly been "named and shamed" based on the fact that you're here talking about him, I really don't see how the fact that he happens to be employed somehow allows him to "stealth sexually predate." He's very clearly well known for his crime, given a total stranger like you knows of it.
He's employed in a position where he can have access to underage male pages for instance a la Stubbs And since he got hired and defended by his Democratic friends, he could easily figure that it could happen again. Besides which I doubt child molesters have a history of clear rational thinking anyway.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| He is far more likely to offend again since he got away with it. |
He didn't "get away" with it, he spent years in prison. Getting a decent job after leaving prison isn't "getting away" with a crime, it's serving out your punishment then moving on with your life.
Only he didn't serve out his punishment...it was eight years out of a 10-15 year sentence.
If anything, the substantial scrutiny that has come upon him because of this "scandal" makes him less likely to reoffend, not more likely.
Only it didn't. After his release from prison his Democratic friends got him a job as a "cabin boy" on a cruise line on May 2 2004. He was fired on June 11...less than SIX WEEKS afterwards.
I'll give you three guesses what he was fired for and the first two don't count.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I don't know about you but I find nothing wrong with shaming and naming pedophiles. |
No one is objecting to "naming and shaming" him; he's very clearly all ready been named and shamed, a process you're here continuing.
Again not widely enough apparently.
We're just saying naming and shaming doesn't need to include a total ban on decent employment. The idea that you need to suffer forever and at best be a "garbage man" because you made a mistake is silly.
I never said that though. I was using garbage collector as an example. He should not be around children though...see my first comment.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Interesting that you are arguing that this convicted pedophile should not face any more censure then he has. |
Censure him all you want, but when you say someone is an enabler of pedophilia because they dare to hire someone who was convicted of and served their time for it, you're stretching. |
They didn't just hire him, they defended him. After he was fired for sexual harassment from his cruise ship line job, his Democratic friends demanded the cruise line REHIRE him or pay him restitution.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:17 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| How's the Bush trial coming along by the way? Jury due back any day with a verdict soon? Oh wait... |
It figures that since you're getting whupped so bad in this argument, you'd try to change the subject. |
Dude, when someone is the one defending a convicted pedophile...they've already lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
He's employed in a position where he can have access to underage male pages for instance a la Stubbs And since he got hired and defended by his Democratic friends, he could easily figure that it could happen again. Besides which I doubt child molesters have a history of clear rational thinking anyway.
|
Again, the scrutiny upon him only makes him less likely to act upon such things, not more likely. The fact that even someone totally unrelated to his case, living in another country, has him on their thoughts means the people around him almost certainly do. It's nothing to worry about.
Regarding "it could happen again," you're saying since he allegedly committed this crime and got off with a "mere" 8 years in prison, he's likely to have the singularly poor judgment to try again because afterwards people were willing to hire him.
Stop acting like this guy got off scott free.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Only he didn't serve out his punishment...it was eight years out of a 10-15 year sentence. |
Newsflash: sentences sometimes change over time. If the government in question released him after 8 years, then his time was considered served after 8 years. The fact that you'd even quibble over this is silly, we both know even if he had served a full 15 you'd feel no different. It's quite disingenuous.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Substantial scrutiny? I was only able to find one article on this guy...and nothing mainstream. |
That's a pretty substantial level of scrutiny over something as absolutely trivial as this case. The article is essentially "Someone who once committed a crime in another country, served his time, and was legally released got a job in a state legislature as an aide thanks to some damn dirty democrats." That's an immense level of scrutiny for something that amounts to trivial nonsense most of us could not care less about.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Again not widely enough apparently. |
Again, widely enough that someone totally uninvolved with the situation is here complaining about it. This guy's offense and employment affect you not at all, you have no real reason to know what he did, yet you know about it and are condemning him. That's quite a bit more naming and shaming than has been availible at almost any juncture in history.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I never said that though. I was using garbage collector as an example. He should not be around children though...see my first comment. |
A garbageman would be around children too. They literally roam neighborhoods collecting garbage, children are very present. Growing up quite a few kids in my neighbhorhood spoke to our garbage man. Sounds to me like you just want to enable this guy, and that puts you on the same level as him.
In all seriousness, though, you're being disingenous again.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| They didn't just hire him, they defended him. |
They did not defend any sex crimes he may or may not have committed, though. There's an immense difference.
All that said, as you say, you could only find a single article about this, and the article is very clearly written by someone not happy with this situation on a site decidedly hostile to liberals. I wonder exactly how accurate the article you clearly accept as gospel truth really is in it's portrayal of the case at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
He's employed in a position where he can have access to underage male pages for instance a la Stubbs And since he got hired and defended by his Democratic friends, he could easily figure that it could happen again. Besides which I doubt child molesters have a history of clear rational thinking anyway.
|
Again, the scrutiny upon him only makes him less likely to act upon such things, not more likely. The fact that even someone totally unrelated to his case, living in another country, has him on their thoughts means the people around him almost certainly do. It's nothing to worry about.
He DID act again on it though shortly after he was released. He was fired for sexual harassment. Did you read the article at all?
Regarding "it could happen again," you're saying since he allegedly committed this crime and got off with a "mere" 8 years in prison, he's likely to have the singularly poor judgment to try again because afterwards people were willing to hire him.
Stop acting like this guy got off scott free.
] I'm not. I'm saying that people like him have singularly poor judgment. Jail doesn't cure you of being a child molester
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Only he didn't serve out his punishment...it was eight years out of a 10-15 year sentence. |
Newsflash: sentences sometimes change over time. If the government in question released him after 8 years, then his time was considered served after 8 years. The fact that you'd even quibble over this is silly, we both know even if he had served a full 15 you'd feel no different. It's quite disingenuous.
No, his time was not considered served. . He was released because of claims of poor health (kidney stones). If he had served a full 15, your point that he had served his time would be valid. Since he didn't, it isn't. Again did you actually read the article? I only ask because you keep bringing up points that are clearly refuted in the article.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Substantial scrutiny? I was only able to find one article on this guy...and nothing mainstream. |
That's a pretty substantial level of scrutiny over something as absolutely trivial as this case. The article is essentially "Someone who once committed a crime in another country, served his time, and was legally released got a job in a state legislature as an aide thanks to some damn dirty democrats." That's an immense level of scrutiny for something that amounts to trivial nonsense most of us could not care less about.
So pedophiles are something we shouldn't care about? Regardless the point is that if Democrats are going to talk about pedophile Republicans, they should purge their own ranks first. And if this is something you don't care about...why are you even here?
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Again not widely enough apparently. |
Again, widely enough that someone totally uninvolved with the situation is here complaining about it. This guy's offense and employment affect you not at all, you have no real reason to know what he did, yet you know about it and are condemning him. That's quite a bit more naming and shaming than has been availible at almost any juncture in history.
He was tried, sentenced and convicted. And I wouldn't keep "naming and shaming" if you didn't keep responding. Since this is central to the debate, it naturally keeps coming up in my replies. So why continue discussing this? Particularly if you are "someone totally uninvolved with the situation"?
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I never said that though. I was using garbage collector as an example. He should not be around children though...see my first comment. |
A garbageman would be around children too. They literally roam neighborhoods collecting garbage, children are very present. Growing up quite a few kids in my neighbhorhood spoke to our garbage man. Sounds to me like you just want to enable this guy, and that puts you on the same level as him.
In all seriousness, though, you're being disingenous again.
A garbage collector does not have the same power and influence as someone in politics does. Seems like you are the one being disingenuous here.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| They didn't just hire him, they defended him. |
They did not defend any sex crimes he may or may not have committed, though. There's an immense difference.
They were trying to force the cruise line to repay him money AFTER he'd been fired for sexually harassing people. Sounds to me like they don't care about his victim(s)
All that said, as you say, you could only find a single article about this, and the article is very clearly written by someone not happy with this situation on a site decidedly hostile to liberals. I wonder exactly how accurate the article you clearly accept as gospel truth really is in it's portrayal of the case at hand. |
If it weren't, then the author could be sued. Given that it hasn't happened and that no denials have been issued...I'd say that's that.
Now if you are unhappy with me bringing up this article for whatever reasons...then drop it and I will too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| He DID act again on it though shortly after he was released. He was fired for sexual harassment. Did you read the article at all? |
Of course I read the article. Sexual harassment isn't child molestation.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| ] I'm not. I'm saying that people like him have singularly poor judgment. Jail doesn't cure you of being a child molester |
Then it's far better that he's in the public eye, ensuring if and when he offends again, he's most likely to be caught.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| No, his time was not considered served. . He was released because of claims of poor health (kidney stones). If he had served a full 15, your point that he had served his time would be valid. Since he didn't, it isn't. Again did you actually read the article? I only ask because you keep bringing up points that are clearly refuted in the article. |
Again, yes, I read the article. Your time is served when they release you, that's that. Sentences are shortened all the time for various reasons. Neither of the above claims in the article in question are "refutations" of what I've said: alleged sexual harassment of adults isn't a "reoffense" of child molestation, and when someone is released by a prison, they no longer have any debt to society, meaning their time has been served. That's why there's no outstanding warrants for his recapture and reincarceration: he has no time left to serve, regardless of how you care to cast it.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| So pedophiles are something we shouldn't care about? Regardless the point is that if Democrats are going to talk about pedophile Republicans, they should purge their own ranks first. And if this is something you don't care about...why are you even here? |
1) The fact that someone who went to jail in another country for alleged pedophilia is given a decent job is not something most people would care about, no. Only highly agenda driven people -- such as the writer of the article in question, and within the context of this conversation, you -- are particularly upset about such a thing.
2) The reason Republicans take so much heat about things like pedophilia is a combination of the fact that they try to represent themselves as a party of conservative moral values and the fact that it happens so much more often within their party. Democrats don't need an absolutely perfect record in that category to note the combination of irony and discrepancy. You can scream, "It's not about numbers," all you like, but when the numbers are as disproportionate as they are, it really is about numbers to some extent.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| He was tried, sentenced and convicted. And I wouldn't keep "naming and shaming" if you didn't keep responding. |
Name and shame all you like, it doesn't bother me.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| So why continue discussing this? Particularly if you are "someone totally uninvolved with the situation"? |
You're welcome to cease discussion any time you like. So long as you continue to make statements I find myself in strong philosophic disagreement with, I'm likely to continue to speak against them. The individual in question is meaningless it me, it's the ideas you're expressing I dislike.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| A garbage collector does not have the same power and influence as someone in politics does. Seems like you are the one being disingenuous here. |
A garbage collector also doesn't have the public profile someone involved in politics does. If this individual werent' involved in politics, the one article that alerted you to his existence -- and thus allowed you to "name and shame" him as you feel is just -- would rather be 0 articles. You should be happy, it means he's been called out moreso than he otherwise would have been.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| They were trying to force the cruise line to repay him money AFTER he'd been fired for sexually harassing people. Sounds to me like they don't care about his victim(s) |
Tell me more about exactly what his "victims" experienced, such that anyone should care about their plight in particular? What exactly did this sexual harassment entail? Neither of us has any real idea what happened because the only information we have about it is a vague retelling by a conservative writer whose goal is to attack liberals.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| If it weren't, then the author could be sued. Given that it hasn't happened and that no denials have been issued...I'd say that's that. |
We both know it isn't as clear cut as that. You can recount a given set of facts in a very condemning way without technically breaking defamation law, particularly when it comes to figures that have made themselves public. The idea that "anything about an individual on the internet that isn't taken down as result of a defamation lawsuit is automatically a true, accurate, and unbiased account," is more than questionable.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Now if you are unhappy with me bringing up this article for whatever reasons...then drop it and I will too. |
I'm not unhappy about it, I simply don't trust it implicitly like you do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fox"]
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| So why continue discussing this? Particularly if you are "someone totally uninvolved with the situation"? |
You're welcome to cease discussion any time you like. So long as you continue to make statements I find myself in strong philosophic disagreement with, I'm likely to continue to speak against them. The individual in question is meaningless it me, it's the ideas you're expressing I dislike.
I don't have time right now to respond to all the points but I just wanted to point out this.
] The only ideas I am expressing are (a) Democrats are not blameless in this regard. (b) Released or not pedophiles shouldn't be given a position of power and influence or be around children. If you disagree please state why? If you agree, we can stop posting here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| (b) Released or not pedophiles shouldn't be given a position of power and influence or be around children. |
I disagree with this. If a given pedophile is too dangerous to be allowed in these situations, they should not be free in the first place. If they aren't too dangerous to be allowed in these situations, there's no reason to deny them such access after they are released; after you've served out your sentence, you need to be able to fully reintegrate into society.
A released pedophile should be allowed to be an aide in a state legislature, assuming the voters in that state are tolerant enough of his position to not vote their representatives out of office over it. If he can't be trusted in such a position due to ongoing instability, the problem isn't that he was hired, it was that he was released. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| (b) Released or not pedophiles shouldn't be given a position of power and influence or be around children. |
I disagree with this. |
Yes, I also disagree with this.
According to the US Dept. of Justice:
| Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote: |
| Even among child molesters, about 18 percent had been arrested for similar offenses before, and only 3.3 percent of those released in 1994 were arrested again for a crime against a child. |
A Wyoming study showed a re-offense rate of 4-5%, and so did this one from Minnesota with five-year follow-up.
In Ohio, the figure was 8% after ten years.
Demonization and ostracism are counterproductive. The best strategy is reintegration into the community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| (b) Released or not pedophiles shouldn't be given a position of power and influence or be around children. |
I disagree with this. |
Yes, I also disagree with this.
According to the US Dept. of Justice:
| Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote: |
| Even among child molesters, about 18 percent had been arrested for similar offenses before, and only 3.3 percent of those released in 1994 were arrested again for a crime against a child. |
A Wyoming study showed a re-offense rate of 4-5%, and so did this one from Minnesota with five-year follow-up.
In Ohio, the figure was 8% after ten years.
Demonization and ostracism are counterproductive. The best strategy is reintegration into the community. |
If you were one of those children who was attacked by a former offender say in Ohio, I don't think it would be much consolation to say..."Well the recidivism rate is only 8%..."
Not only that but this article http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html says that the number of offenses are greatly underreported...up to 2.4 times the number officially reported. |
|
| 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
