|
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 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: ... |
 |
|
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/firstnations/reasons.html
| Quote: |
| In addition to worries regarding settlement pressure, Prairie First Nations were also concerned with establishing and securing peaceful and cordial relations with the Canadian government. Kinship and political ties with the Natives of the United States made Canadian Indians aware of the problems with settlers and their government there. Loss of territory, disease, and extensive Indian wars south of the border had decimated the Native population there and Canadian Indians were determined to avoid the influence of the United States government. In addition, the British colonial administration of British North America had a record of dealing with the First Nations of this region in a benign manner and this policy was expected to continue with the Dominion government. Therefore, if outside governments had to be dealt with, the Canadian was certainly the better of two evils from the Native point of view. |
| Quote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
Did agents of the US government provide small-pox infected blankets to American Indians?
No. This is myth. |
It was actually the British colonial general during the French and Indian War. My bad. But it's not a myth. Your bad.
| Quote: |
| Did the School of the Americas teach torture? |
Yes, thank you.
| Quote: |
| Did the US support Pinochet? |
Yes, thank you.
| Quote: |
| Did Columbus's envoys rape and murder? |
Yes.
| Quote: |
| Who are "Columbus's envoys"? |
Here I mean his "men". Specifically, I was thinking of those he left behind during his first voyage to build a fort and "find the gold". Also, I did not want to suggest that Columbus himself raped anyone.
| Quote: |
Did George Bush joke about his inability to find WMD while people were dying to accomplish hat [sic] now appears to have been an empty mission?
We saw video of an excerpt of Bush's speech at a roast -- attended by (and laughed at by) leading politicians from both sides of the aisle -- where non-contemporaneous imagery was superimposed over his remarks to manipulate our emotions. |
We saw footage of the contemporaneous war dead superimposed over footage of the President joking about the folly those soldiers died for.
| Quote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
defending Bush for Katrina
Not quite. It is unfair to blame Bush for the damage Katrina wrought. This notwithstanding, Bush was part of an overall slow and inadequate response to the disaster and can be faulted for this. |
A response begins with preparedness. Under his watch, funding was cut on the levees he would subsequently say "no one expected" to break although it topped a list of FEMA disaster scenarios.
| Quote: |
defending "America"against internal critics
Pointing out that there is complexity in the conveniently simplistic laundry list of terrible crimes and attrocities that you and other anti-American Americans and anti-American Canadians say the Great Satan has afflicted onto the rest of the world with is not defending America. |
No it isn't defending America. It's you burbling away about context that doesn't prove much of anything.
| Quote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
defending the Pentagon
Pointing out that you are relying on your own cynical anti-govt views and pure circumstantial evidence in this thread is not defending the Pentagon.
So, do you or do you not have any direct evidence to bring to bear on this issue? |
Circumstancial evidence? Isn't that something like CONTEXT? Oh yes, so context is for you alone?
No, I have no direct evidence. Neither do you. I don't see how it's "cynically ant-government" to complain about the Pentagon playing games with the 9/11 Commission. All you have is an opinion that he isn't being harassed.
| Quote: |
| To reason in this manner is completely puerile: it is also as puerile to maintain that 'the CIA overthrew Allende' as it is to say that the United States had nothing to do with it or that Cuba (and the Soviet Union) did not play a role..." |
And, as I have pointed out before, you consistently rely on assigning motives to your opponents. According to you, they're always trying to pin everything bad on the US. Realize that this is actually you dumbing things down, not other people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
Did agents of the US government provide small-pox infected blankets to American Indians?
No. This is myth. |
It was actually the British colonial general during the French and Indian War. My bad. But it's not a myth. Your bad. |
I've seen evidence that the British commander considered it. I've seen no evidence that he actually perpetrated it.
Do you have such evidence to cite?
No? That's because you're talking about a myth.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Did the School of the Americas teach torture?
Yes, thank you.
Did the US support Pinochet?
Yes, thank you.
Did Columbus's envoys rape and murder?
Yes. |
Of course you would reduce my answers to one word -- "yes" or "no." You are on a quest to establish the Great Satan's guilt (and apparently colonial Spain's too). You're interested in constructing cases for the prosecution. This clouds your thinking on everything, which, in any case, has never particularly reflected brilliance.
In any case, do you have any direct evidence to cite that shows how the Pentagon is harassing this officer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your quotes on Columbus, in chronological order:
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| It is indisputable that Columbus abused Native Americans, many of whom died as such. |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| ...you offer up some concept that Columbus didn't know that Native Americans were being raped, murdered, and otherwise brutalized. This shows A) that you really don't know much about Columbus's expeditions... |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Hey, Columbus sailed on the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. So he raped some Indians. It wasn't the Santa Maria's fault. Give the guy a break. He's still the "Admiral of the Ocean Seas". |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Here I mean his "men". Specifically, I was thinking of those he left behind during his first voyage to build a fort and "find the gold". Also, I did not want to suggest that Columbus himself raped anyone. |
Can you at least get your story straight?
On a side note: your pattern of placing punctuation marks outside of the quotation marks strongly suggests that you went to school somewhere besides the U.S. where matters of style are taught differently. Where did you grow up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
I've seen evidence that the British commander considered it. I've seen no evidence that he actually perpetrated it.
Do you have such evidence to cite?
No? That's because you're talking about a myth. |
http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm
| Quote: |
The only documented case of smallpox blankets being given to Indians was by Captain Eucyer of the British army. I challenge anyone to offer documented proof, except for the two blankets given out by Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt, of smallpox infected blankets being deliberately given to Indians as a means of spreading smallpox. Letters by General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet mentioning spreading smallpox to Indians does not mean that this was ever carried out. Assumptions derived from letters and oral traditions are not proof of anything.
In a letter (1763) to Colonel Bouquet, Lord Amherst wrote, "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them".
Bouquet replied that he would try and use infected blankets as a means of introducing the disease among the Indians, but was wary of the effects that it would have on his own men...at least twenty-five percent or more of Bouquet's soldiers would have been susceptible to the smallpox virus.
The Amherst letter has been used to support the proposition of germ warfare or genocide against native populations. Amherst may have discussed it in correspondence with Bouquet, but there is no evidence that Colonel Bouquet carried it out. As he mentioned in his reply, Bouquet was afraid of what it would do to his own men and with good reason. 1763 was twenty-three years before Jenner��s work on vaccination, and one hundred years before Pasteur advanced his germ theory. The only thing known about smallpox in 1763 was��age, color of skin, social status meant nothing to the smallpox virus...an infected person died or, if lucky enough to survive, was often disfigured for life. No matter how bad Amherst may have wanted to be rid of the Indians, it seems doubtful that he would unleash a disease on his soldiers that had already killed millions of his own countrymen.
There is no evidence that Col. Bouquet took any action on Amherst's letter, but there is evidence that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt did. |
Regarding Columbus, I'll retract statement 3 in the series, but I believe my story is straight. I have no evidence that Columbus himself raped anyone. It was the men under his command who perpetrated the atrocities. But of course "atrocity" is a Gopher taboo word...
| Quote: |
| Of course you would reduce my answers to one word -- "yes" or "no." You are on a quest to establish the Great Satan's guilt (and apparently colonial Spain's too). You're interested in constructing cases for the prosecution. This clouds your thinking on everything, which, in any case, has never particularly reflected brilliance. |
Let us beg off the question for the moment and consider something immaterial to this particular argument: In Colonial America, people administered a "puff of tobacco" to children to combat colds. The context was that they didn't know their medicine. Are they "guilty" of administering tobacco as cold medicine? Yes.
Saying they didn't know what they were doing doesn't obviate the fact of what they did.
Now, by your own reasoning, there are three schools of thought about this:
A) Conservative: Nothing wrong with it.
B) Liberal: Everything's wrong with it.
C) Gopher-enlightened objectivity: It was wrong, but in the context it was normal.
That is the pedestal from which I've described you as speaking.
If that is legitimately how historians regard schools of thought (2 retarded and one right), then I wonder how there are 3 schools of thought?
According to your MA studies, are there really 2 "schools" of people with Ph D's yammering on although it's obvious to themselves that they fall into the 2 retarded schools?
Or is it that they're all trying to be objective and you're categorizing them as you see fit.
Case in point:
| Quote: |
| Of course you would reduce my answers to one word -- "yes" or "no." You are on a quest to establish the Great Satan's guilt (and apparently colonial Spain's too). You're interested in constructing cases for the prosecution. This clouds your thinking on everything, which, in any case, has never particularly reflected brilliance. |
Quite specifically:
| Quote: |
| You are on a quest to establish the Great Satan's guilt (and apparently colonial Spain's too). |
Who the *beep* are you to tell me what I'm trying to do?
Where have I ever used the term "Great Satan"? Or is that you dumbing down your opposition?
America is guilty for what it's done. Colonial Spain is guilty for what it did.
Are they not?
I was wrong for accusing America of using smallpox-infected blankets. I am readyand willing to admit where I am wrong. Are you? Go back to the Canadian thread and tell them that you were wrong about Canada "rolling over" their indigenous peoples the way the US did (not my words, yours).
To be quite exact, your claim that I'm representing the prosecution only suggests that you're representing the defense. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make you judge.
And that's the bit that I don't think you get.
The US supported Pinochet.
The School of Americas taught torture.
Columbus's men raped and murdered.
Bush appointed a crony to head FEMA and cut funding for the levees he didn't think would break.
Bush was joking about not finding WMD while people were dying for this mission.
It seems to me that you simply don't want these things to be said.
Now, it would be perfectly OK for you to say, "Hey, consider the circumstances." The circumstances are considerable. But that's not what you are doing. You move on not to question but declare your opponents' motivations. You imply that these people are incapable of considering the context and attribute your own ideas to explain why they don't agree with you.
| Quote: |
| On a side note: your pattern of placing punctuation marks outside of the quotation marks strongly suggests that you went to school somewhere besides the U.S. where matters of style are taught differently. Where did you grow up? |
I grew up in the Midwest. I went to school on the East Coast.
Most of my friends live on the West Coast.
My nephew is now in Iraq laying his ass on the line for things George Bush can laugh about.
That's what I you need to know about me.
In terms of punctuation, I spoke of Columbus's "men", not "men." It's illogical:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
That said, where did you grow up |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link. Here's the relevant language:
| Quote: |
| In American style, then, you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's "Design." But in England [and Spain and Latin America] you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's "Design". |
It would seem that your rejection of all things from the United States goes so deep as to affect even your writing style.
In any case, I grew up on the west coast and in the southwest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Of course you would reduce my answers to one word -- "yes" or "no." You are on a quest to establish the Great Satan's guilt (and apparently colonial Spain's too). You're interested in constructing cases for the prosecution. This clouds your thinking on everything, which, in any case, has never particularly reflected brilliance. |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Who the *beep* are you to tell me what I'm trying to do?
America is guilty for what it's done. Colonial Spain is guilty for what it did.
Are they not?
...your claim that I'm representing the prosecution
The US supported Pinochet.
The School of Americas taught torture.
Columbus's men raped and murdered.
Bush appointed a crony to head FEMA and cut funding for the levees he didn't think would break.
Bush was joking about not finding WMD while people were dying for this mission.
It seems to me that you simply don't want these things to be said. |
You look at historical events and processes and see evidence that justifies your preexisting ideological convictions.
Take imperial Spain, for example. You only see that "Columbus's men raped and murdered." You only very grudgingly show any awareness at all of what Hanke calls the Spanish struggle for justice during Latin America's early colonial period, which was an equally powerful motor driving historical events.
You also refuse to consider that imperial Spain's rivals, namely Britain and France, jealous of the Spanish king's many titles, including being recognized by the Pope as "Holy Roman Emperor," not to mention the vast and unimaginable amounts of gold and silver coming in from the western hemisphere, were instigating and exaggerating the so-called Black Legend to undermine Spain's moral authority in Western Europe.
So, too, were Spaniards like Las Casas, who wished to undermine conquistador and encomendero power in the colonies in order that the Church might gain more powers there.
Just because you chronically ignore the bigger picture, and just because you chronically focus only on narrow bits and pieces of information to support your prosecutorial diatribes, and just because I object to this one-sidedness, this does not make me the defender that you allege I am.
I merely point out your hatreds and your anti-American agenda, and I show how this distorts your thinking on most of the subjects you post on, here on this board. Don't believe me?
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
The US supported Pinochet.
The School of Americas taught torture. |
Add these one-sided NowhereManisms up, and tell me what you get. A judgment? What judgment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:25 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The govt is extremely uptight and Puritanical when it comes to security clearances. |
So, stealing pens and getting drunk is a fair allegation to bring the day before you're gonna testify before the 9/11 commitee about Able Danger? |
When it comes to security clearances, there is nothing fair about it. Eisenhower said that it's a privilege and not a right to work for the govt when he started this thing in the 1950s. (Nevermind his own wartime extramarital affair.)
If you ask me, it's ridiculous, and they still end up with people like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen and Bobby Innman, and many others, including CNOs who invent medals they never earned.
Before "don't ask/don't tell" their use of homosexuality to deny security clearances and even admission to the armed forces was particularly hypocritical, given that gay friends in the States have told me stories I never would have believed when I was in the Corps.
All of this notwithstanding, I just don't think they are especially harassing this officer, and I could be wrong, too, although I haven't seen any evidence to support it.
Suspicion is not enough. |
But it is the Bush administration M.O. This kind of stuff happened to the guy (can't remember his name) who complained about tactics at Abu Ghraib. He was accused of adultery. And now it's happening to Ian Fishback, who has been trying to get the rampant torture in Iraq stopped working from inside the military for months, and is now going public.
No, we can't be certain that this guy is the subject of harassment, but everything we are given should make us do more than simply raise an eyebrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone are care to explain how the thread got sidetracked into a discussion re: the pros, cons & history of torture?
The biggest thing being covered up by stiffling investigation into "ABLE DANGER" is that players such as Atta were actively involved in a massive Florida based heroin trafficking operation.
Here's an interview with Mohammed Atta's former girlfriend. Apparently he was indeed just another good pious Muslim who, among other things, enjoyed doing a LOT of cocaine & booze 
If you wanna skip all the electronic election fraud stuff & jump straight to the interview re: a number of shady things going on at the Venice flight school start the clip at 7:20.
http://www.madcowprod.com/My%20Web/test.wmv
Then, as i was saying, there's THIS:
Able Danger Intel Exposed "Protected" Heroin Trafficking
August 17, 2005 - Venice, FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker
Mohamed Atta was protected from official scrutiny as part of an officially-protected cocaine and heroin trafficking network with ties to top political figures, including Republican officials Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and it was this fact—and not the ��terrible lapses�� of ��weak on terror�� Clinton Administration officials cited by Republican Congressman Curt Weldon—which shielded him from being apprehended before the 9.11 attack.
Weldon alleges that Pentagon lawyers rejected the military intelligence unit��s recommendation to apprehend Atta because he was in the country legally, and therefore information on him could not be shared with law enforcement.
But the ��terrible lapses�� cited by Weldon do not stem from the nonsensical assertion that Atta had a green card (he did not) which rendered him immune from military investigation but were the result of an officially-protected heroin trafficking operation being conducted on planes like those of Wally Hilliard, whose Lear jet flew "milk runs" down and back to Venezuela every week for 39 weeks in a row before finally running afoul of local DEA agents not been clued-in on the 'joke.'
Moreover the secret military intelligence operation which identified Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a threat a year before the 9.11 attack, called Able Danger, was by no means the first military intelligence investigation into the activities of the Hamburg cadre.
http://www.madcowprod.com/08172005.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Anyone are care to explain how the thread got sidetracked into a discussion re: the pros, cons & history of torture? |
Yes, whenever Nowhere Man disagrees with a position I take, he parades an oversimplified list ("the Indictment") of all previous positions I've taken on all previous threads and demands that I explain...that's what happened here (again).  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| No, we can't be certain that this guy is the subject of harassment, but everything we are given should make us do more than simply raise an eyebrow. |
You do sound pretty convinced though. Might you say that it was "a slam dunk" issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another example or the "harassment" on security clearances that I had forgotten, but was just mentioned in the news again...
An agency's attitude toward drug use has been blamed for unexpected consequences. The CIA forced one of its officers, Edward Lee Howard, to resign in May 1983 after he failed a polygraph test and disclosed his drug use in Colombia during 1975 when he was a Peace Corps volunteer.
Howard defected to the Soviet Union in 1985 after he was accused of espionage activities that spy hunters believe were driven by resentment over his forced resignation.
"I had been totally honest about each and every misdeed in my past, including my drug use in South America and my occasional abuse of alcohol," Howard wrote in his 1995 memoirs. He died in July 2002 at his home outside Moscow.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/09/fbi.marijuana.ap/index.html
For more on Howard, see Antonio Mendez, Spy Dust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You look at historical events and processes and see evidence that justifies your preexisting ideological convictions. |
I see a bunch of facts that you quite clearly acknowledge. You then proceed to insert my motivations for doing so.
| Quote: |
| Take imperial Spain, for example. You only see that "Columbus's men raped and murdered." You only very grudgingly show any awareness at all of what Hanke calls the Spanish struggle for justice during Latin America's early colonial period, which was an equally powerful motor driving historical events. |
I see a bunch of facts that you quite clearly acknowledge. You then proceed to insert my motivations for doing so.
| Quote: |
| You also refuse to consider that imperial Spain's rivals, namely Britain and France, jealous of the Spanish king's many titles, including being recognized by the Pope as "Holy Roman Emperor," not to mention the vast and unimaginable amounts of gold and silver coming in from the western hemisphere, were instigating and exaggerating the so-called Black Legend to undermine Spain's moral authority in Western Europe. |
I see a bunch of facts that you quite clearly acknowledge. You then proceed to insert my motivations for doing so.
| Quote: |
| So, too, were Spaniards like Las Casas, who wished to undermine conquistador and encomendero power in the colonies in order that the Church might gain more powers there. |
I see a bunch of facts that you quite clearly acknowledge. You then proceed to insert my motivations for doing so.
| Quote: |
| Just because you chronically ignore the bigger picture, and just because you chronically focus only on narrow bits and pieces of information to support your prosecutorial diatribes, and just because I object to this one-sidedness, this does not make me the defender that you allege I am. |
Your opinions of my opinions are just that: opinions. You don't just "Object to one-sidedness". It might be for the better if you do. You immediately and regularly take it upon yourself to explain the motivations of your opponents.
| Quote: |
| I merely point out your hatreds and your anti-American agenda, and I show how this distorts your thinking on most of the subjects you post on, here on this board. Don't believe me? |
I see a bunch of facts that you quite clearly acknowledge. You then proceed to insert my motivations for doing so.
Then, of all things, it's my punctuation as evidence that I hate America.
If you understand anything at all, understand this, you pompous, self-centered, self-righteous piece of bull excrement:
I AM AMERICAN. AND YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS CALLING ME ANTI-AMERICAN to suit your own half-assed, apologetic, mediocre, fence-riding, sorry excuse for a balanced point of view.
But I sympathize. It's unfortunate that your MA taught you to psychoanalyze people and dismiss them based upon your own self-defined motivations.
There is a term for that: Cognitive dissonance.
Maybe you should've studied psychology, as that's what you deal in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm crushed. I'll never get over it.
My posts and interpretations still stand, however. You've been myopic -- even overzealous -- in your antiAmericanism, alleging things like the smallpox blankets that aren't even supported in the evidentiary record.
As you were. Go get 'em, tiger. Hang 'em high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:07 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
My "anti-Americanism" stands.
We've weathered bigotry and its apologists.
We've weathered the demeaning of people based on sex, and we're weathering discrimination based on sexuality.
We've weathered all matter of denial.
I do recognize your "contexts", but context doesn't dismiss anything.
Moreover, I see your own position as anti-American.
You are clearly compromising what I see as basic American values.
But never mind that. Let's get back to the OP. A man's security clearance was revoked the day before he was to testify.
You offer evidence of some guy being busted for drugs in the 80s.
What exactly is your point? Was he being investigated the NEXT DAY by some commission? Or did you just fire that off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| ... in your antiAmericanism, alleging things like the smallpox blankets that aren't even supported in the evidentiary record. |
Yanks were more keen on supplying British North America's indians with whiskey & guns. Likely wanted to keep em' alive, provided they kept drinking and buying firearms. For their part the North West Mounted Police were constantly trying to keep these elements south of the 54th parallel.
Small pox blankets is a fact ( one some would like simply to be erased from history ), however from what i understand it was more the Scottish & British fur traders. |
|
| 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
