CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Why is the moderator censoring Newsweek?

Why is the moderator censoring Newsweek?

Started by rapidmaker77 · · 👁 4 views · 20 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants rapidmaker77wanderingheron52rustydrifter10Ryan Vaughn7Sarah Stewart3silentviper19Thomas Williams23ruggedpanther13
rapidmaker77 rapidmaker77 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Jun 2012
#1 ·
Last night, I posted an analysis regarding the topic of same-sex marriage—a piece that required significant research and effort.
Essentially, my post was a compilation of reporting from Newsweek combined with several key historical facts, along with some personal inquiries I had regarding the matter.

However, my post was deleted, and I was slapped with a 30-point penalty without any specific explanation provided.
The only justification given was a vague claim of "violating subforum rules."
I attempted to reach out to the moderator via private message to understand why the content was removed, but I have received no response.

I am now calling upon the administration and the community at large to review whether the moderator acted appropriately by deleting a text that simply relays information published by Newsweek.

I respectfully request that the administration permit the citation of reputable American news outlets, reinstate my original post,🙂 and rescind this unnecessary 30-point penalty.
rapidmaker77 rapidmaker77 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Jun 2012
#2 ·
Here is the text that was deleted—a move that cost me 30 points without even a single shred of explanation.
-----------------------------------------------------

Let’s inject a little actual "science" into our "roughly speaking" conversations.
It is frequently asserted that "scientific truth" dictates that homosexuality is no longer classified as a psychological disorder.
Do those people actually understand the process by which this supposed "truth" was manufactured?

Back in the 1970s, the psychiatric establishment actually classified homosexuality as a psychological disorder..

Back then, radical gay activists led by Frank Kameny were launching public assaults against various psychiatrists, just as he documented at the time. Newsweek: "

But even more than the government, it was the psychiatrists who bore the brunt of the activists' fury. Over the last two years, gay rights activists have been relentlessly disrupting psychiatric sessions—and just three months ago... A group of thirty gay activists forced their way into an American Psychiatric Association meeting in Washington, D.C.Bolstered by media figures and journalists like Andrew Sullivan and Mark Thompson—who were themselves active in gay rights circles—they maintained relentless political pressure until 1973, when the APA finally relented and made their decision. To cast a vote. 😲 The decision to strip homosexuality from the DSM was a watershed moment in clinical history, though many still struggle to grasp its significance. It wasn't merely a clerical update; it was a fundamental shift in how the medical establishment views human identity. For years, we operated under a framework that pathologized basic existence, treating orientation as a dysfunction to be cured rather than a variation to be understood. When the American Psychiatric Association finally took that step, they weren't just changing a manual—they were acknowledging that science had been wrong, and that the "disorder" lived more in our societal prejudices than in any biological pathology.

April 9, 1974. The election results have been released. Only 10,555 out of 17,905. Members of the American Psychiatric Association have cast their votes. The results are in:

The total number of voting members within the American Psychiatric Association stands at 17,905.
The actual turnout among APA members who cast their votes stands at 10,555.
Total count of those being held: 367.
The number of people who voted to keep homosexuality listed as a psychological disorder in the DSM stands at 3,810.
The number of individuals who cast their votes in favor of removing homosexuality from the DSM as a psychological disorder stands at 5,854.

It is telling that only 32% of the American Psychiatric Association membership actually voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

I'm looking for someone to walk me through this.

Since when did we decide that a popularity contest qualifies as a scientific method?

How would that vote play out in today's climate?🤷
What if, a century from now, the ballot box yields entirely different results?🤷
Does a consensus reached by psychiatrists from Japan, Russia, India, China, or Germany actually constitute some objective "truth" regarding homosexuality?

Did we really stumble upon the truths of mathematics, physics, and chemistry simply by raising our hands?
Is it all just a result of relentless lobbying and activist pressure?

Since when did shouting matches become a legitimate scientific method? 😲

Are we, as a society, obligated to respect these kinds of manufactured "truths"?
One should respect those who find comfort in the rule of the majority, provided that such a preference remains consistent.
Suddenly, seven hundred thousand people decide to "outvote" the truth all at once.
To claim that this constitutes discrimination is a stretch.
rapidmaker77 rapidmaker77 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Jun 2012
#3 ·
I’d like to offer my take on why the moderator decided to censor the Newsweek piece.

It boils down to a very simple motivation: he didn't like what was written in😉
. He took issue with it because the content clashes with his own worldview, leaving him without a substantive way to counter the argument.
Since it is notoriously difficult to argue against stubborn facts, he fell back on the only tactic left in the historical playbook:

Censorship is merely the logical extension of political moderation—it serves as an incredibly efficient tool whenever a preferred theory fails to align with reality.

It brings to mind that famous sentiment attributed to Stalin:

''If there is no man, there is no text—and if there is no text, there is no problem.''
wanderingheron52 wanderingheron52 Member
18 messages
joined Sep 2013
#4 ·
So this is what they call the "rule" of rights and equality—the supposed bedrock of this administration and our little corner of the internet here.
I can’t help but wonder what kind of society we’d actually end up with if people started using these "tools" just to settle scores with anyone who thinks differently, all while hiding behind the banner of equality...
rapidmaker77 rapidmaker77 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Jun 2012
#5 ·
I would like to formally notify both the community and the administration
that, alongside this thread, I have launched a poll to gauge whether the general membership,
the moderators, and the administration agree with the recent actions taken by the moderator
the edge.

I am requesting that the administration provide a reasoned explanation as to why my poll was deleted. Furthermore, I invite all members to look past the technicalities and the various justifications used to dismiss it, and instead😁...
within this discussion, express your actual thoughts regarding the moderator's decision to
delete content deemed inappropriate concerning the Newsweek article.
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#6 ·
rapidmaker77 said:I’d really appreciate it if the admins could give me a solid, reasoned explanation as to why the poll was deleted.

Look, a poll like that just doesn't belong on the FBI forums because the results aren't actually relevant here—anyone can vote, and they can vote however they want, which makes citing it completely pointless. Generally speaking, polls aren't a reliable way to establish facts, at least not on this PDF, and they’re very rarely allowed, especially not within appeal threads like this one.
rapidmaker77 rapidmaker77 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Jun 2012
#7 ·
rustydrifter10 said:A poll like this has no business being on the FBI forum because its results lack any real relevance here; anyone can vote however they please, making any appeal to such data completely futile. Generally speaking, polls aren't tools for establishing facts—certainly not on a PDF like this—and they are rarely permitted, let alone in grievance threads.

But the intention behind a poll isn't to be Mandatory for the administration.😉

Isn't it a rather creative way to gauge the "vox populi"—the voice of the users and the rest of the
moderators?😉

Furthermore, why do you assume the forum members are just "anyone"?
Their opinion regarding a moderator's conduct is just as significant as
the public's opinion on how the government governs.

If it is understood that a poll is not Mandatory for the administration,
I believe prudent leadership could utilize such a creative mechanism to see what the people think about specific ministers, or in this case, moderators.😉

Therefore, I request that the wise leadership restore the poll to this thread and allow forum members elsewhere on the FBI forum
to vote on moderator actions during a dispute, provided there is a clause stating that the result is merely advisory and not mandatory. 🙂
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#8 ·
rapidmaker77 said:But the whole point of the poll isn't to force the administration's hand😉

Isn't that just a pretty clever way to get a sense of the "voice of the people"—both the users here and the other
moderators😉

Look, people on this forum can express their views politely and with actual arguments—that’s really the entire purpose of this PDF, not some binary poll where you're stuck choosing between "yes" or some equally garbage options. If you don't have anything substantive to contribute beyond a one-word answer, honestly, you probably shouldn't even bother chiming in. A poll isn't a real metric here, and it has no business being on a platform that deals with such serious and sensitive topics. It won't change anything.

Also, regarding that "everyone is invited" call; it’s not like "everyone" who wants to join actually can. It should only be those who actually know what they're talking about and are willing to back up their stance with hard facts. You've already voiced your complaint, so now it's up to the moderator you're unhappy with, and after that, the ball is in the court of the supermod and the admins.
wanderingheron52 wanderingheron52 Member
18 messages
joined Sep 2013
#9 ·
rustydrifter10 said:A poll like this doesn't belong on the DNC forums because the results aren't actually relevant here—anyone can vote for whatever they want, so pointing to it is just pointless. Generally speaking, polls aren't really a way to establish facts, at least not on this PDF, and they're rarely allowed anyway, especially not in threads about appeals.

This is just a textbook example of how to troll a thread and derail the whole thing. I mean, since the admin decided to chime in, she might as well have actually addressed the questions in the title. Look, I know other people's bans don't concern me, and honestly, I’m fine with taking the hit for saying that, but it would also be pretty interesting to find out what happened with the ban on my post right above my first entry in this thread... who issued it, who wiped it... I guess we'll see.
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#10 ·
wanderingheron52 said:This is just a textbook example of how someone can troll a thread and steer the whole conversation completely off course. Honestly, dear admin, since you decided to jump in, you really could have addressed the actual questions from the original post too.

We're just waiting for moderator and supermoderator at this point.

And for the record, other people's business doesn't concern you.

Let's wrap up the off-topic chatter here.
Ryan Vaughn7 Ryan Vaughn7 Active Member
154 messages
joined Jul 2009
#11 ·
rapidmaker77 said:Last night on the politics board, I posted an article about gay "marriage" that I spent quite a bit of time researching and putting together.
Essentially, the piece is a transcription of a TIME article combined with some significant historical facts (along with a few questions of my own).

I mentioned this to a colleague over at the FBI recently, so I’ll just say it again here: on the politics subforum, we don't tolerate arguments claiming homosexuality is a psychological diagnosis, or debating why it should be, or anything remotely similar. It’s a very well-established rule from the moderators, and it's been that way for a long time. You might get away with that kind of talk on a different board, maybe, but I wouldn't count on it. On politics, it just isn't allowed and will land you a rule violation. It doesn't matter if TIME was writing about it forty years ago.
Sarah Stewart3 Sarah Stewart3 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Aug 2014
#12 ·
rapidmaker77 said:Since when did popularity contests become a legitimate scientific method?

Always. 🤷 Whenever scientists hit a stalemate and a formal policy needs to be drawn up, they just default to a majority consensus. It's how it works.
silentviper19 silentviper19 Active Member
117 messages
joined Mar 2013
#13 ·
It’s just a pointless attempt at proving nothing.

See, it wasn't about some overly complicated mathematical formula like 2+2=4. It was actually about real human beings—people who, up until then, were being treated like outcasts or deviants by the entire government and society at large.

There had to be this massive push to get the psychiatric community to hold an official vote and basically say, "Hey, these people aren't sick." Back then, most folks were still pretty narrow-minded, so they needed the AP to step in and issue a formal statement through a vote. The idea was that if the experts spoke up, maybe it would nudge public opinion just enough to start seeing them as normal.
But honestly, looking at things now, it seems like we haven't really come that far.
rapidmaker77 rapidmaker77 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Jun 2012
#14 ·
Ryan Vaughn7 said:As I recently mentioned to a colleague over at the FBI—and I’ll say it again—this political subforum does not tolerate homosexuality being treated as a psychiatric diagnosis. If you want to argue that it should be, why shouldn't we discuss similar connotations? This is a well-established stance from the moderators and isn't anything new. Try moving to a different subforum; maybe you'll get away with it there, who knows. But here on Politics, that kind of rhetoric gets you a rule violation, regardless of what TIME was reporting forty years ago.

Good grief, man, where in that TIME article does it actually state that homosexuality is a psychiatric diagnosis? You can't just go around accusing news outlets and forum members of implying "connotations" based on historical facts and actual data!

By your logic, every man is a potential rapist simply because he has a penis and all those other CONNOTATIONS SURROUNDING THE PENIS 🙄, and because of those connotations, he connotatively threatens innocent women nearby, so men should just be banned from approaching women altogether.🙄

The text you deleted provided a nuanced historical analysis and various perspectives.🤷

Why delete someone else's hard work and research?
Have you considered punishing the post🙄 while leaving it up, since it provides valuable data for anyone writing or researching this topic?

I would love to hear the administrator's stance on this specific moderator POLICY
where the POLICY is that a legitimate thesis regarding homosexuality being a disorder cannot be hermeneutically analyzed or even questioned.🤷

How is such one-sidedness even permitted on a PUBLIC forum for discussion?🤷

Is it also unacceptable to say that nearsightedness is a visual impairment because it might "offend"
people who wear glasses?🙄

Yet, at the same time, it's perfectly fine to say the most vitriolic things imaginable about initiatives or worldviews that the moderator simply doesn't like.🤷

I find it fascinating that the people censoring others' work and opinions truly believe they are being fair and democratic, while everyone else is just there to be proudly censored by them.

Congratulations on a masterclass in public self-delusion! 👏
rapidmaker77 rapidmaker77 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Jun 2012
#15 ·
silentviper19 said:... because most people were still quite narrow-minded and if they had required the AP to settle things via a vote, wouldn't that just pressure people into shifting their views slightly to appear "normal"
? Yet, from what I can see, that hasn't changed things much today either.

Hold on, do you honestly believe that three thousand eight hundred psychiatrists voting
to label homosexuality a disorder was simply due to being backward😲

and that through a majority vote, one can establish an absolute TRUTH regarding
worldviews and opinions that we are all forced to adhere to under threat of sanction?

Do you truly think that if someone views homosexuality as a disorder, they are "backward"😲 ,while you, by disagreeing, represent the cutting edge of humanity😲?

How is it not obvious to you that there is no objective truth when it comes to ideas that cannot be "objectified" or settled by a show of hands?

If psychiatrists voted that God does not exist, would you then go around swinging a police baton on the streets or using a moderator's mouse on a forum to erase anyone who dares to question a vote concerning God, or rather, HUMAN IDEAS AND BELIEFS?😲
wanderingheron52 wanderingheron52 Member
18 messages
joined Sep 2013
#16 ·
Personally, I don't have any beef with how the mods laid things out. Honestly, I’m kind of glad they’re being this transparent about it—it's their right, after all.

I mean, if someone can't handle seeing things explained like this, they probably shouldn't be poking the bear in the first place. It’s just going to fry their nerves, I guess. As far as I'm concerned, once the moderator dropped that explanation, my business with this whole forum was pretty much done.
So much for tolerance and playing nice with the "different" crowd.
Thomas Williams23 Thomas Williams23 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Jun 2013
#17 ·
Ryan Vaughn7 said:As I recently mentioned to a colleague over at the FBI, I’ll say it again: on the politics subforum, we don't tolerate claims that homosexuality is a psychological diagnosis—or any similar connotations. That is a well-established stance held by the moderators and it isn't anything new. Try posting that on a different subforum; maybe you'll get away with it there, who knows. But on Politics, that's a violation that will land you a red card. It doesn't matter if TIME was writing about it forty years ago.

Fine, then this forum should be a place for free expression where everyone can voice their views. That’s the fundamental principle, yet you’ve decided otherwise simply because you've made that executive call.

Furthermore, while the forum has specific rules for different sections, citing scientific sources, reputable global media outlets, or analyzing the origins of certain social processes should never be subject to censorship or prohibition.

Who are you to censor TIME? Are you planning to add CNN and ABC to your blacklist too?

Moreover, on another subforum, there is an open discussion regarding homosexuality being classified as a disorder, led by two highly respected moderators. No one can fault them, as both are scientists who utilize peer-reviewed research in their debates.

Here is the proof for my claim:

But you have chosen to play the scientist, the censor, the judge, and the architect of public opinion all at once. Your role as a moderator isn't to dictate exactly what and how people write, but to maintain a standard of decent, dignified communication and make the experience pleasant for everyone.

Instead, you've outgrown that. You want to decide what people think and how they express themselves; apparently, users can say whatever they want as long as they agree with you. If they don't, you step in to declare it forbidden.

Undermining the core tenets of this forum and preventing people from discussing scientifically proven facts can only be done by those fanatically devoted to pushing a specific ideology.

The Golden Age of science flourished for centuries, giving us much of our mathematical foundation and numerous inventions we still use today. That progress stalled when fanatics arrived and declared certain branches of mathematics to be heretical.

You are the modern version of that fanatic—declaring modern scientific achievements to be heresy and being ready to brand anyone who mentions them as such.

If this is the administration's official stance—if people will continue to be banned for discussing facts without resorting to hate speech or insults—then we have to ask if the golden era of this forum is over. Forcing a scientifically proven condition onto the same level as "normal" is just as fanatically nonsensical as religious extremism. Insisting on this rule is counterproductive to freedom of speech and the health of this community, all just so you can play the big boss.

Go ahead then, but don't start threads asking "where did the legendary members go," and don't bother mentioning their names; Ryan Vaughn7 has them all recorded on yellow and red cards...

Have a good evening, everyone. Death to censorship, wherever and for whomever it is practiced. ☕
Ryan Vaughn7 Ryan Vaughn7 Active Member
154 messages
joined Jul 2009
#18 ·
rapidmaker77 said:So, if I’m following your train of thought correctly, you're basically saying that every single man is just a walking, breathing potential predator simply because he happens to have a penis—along with all those other heavy connotations attached to it. That's a pretty intense way to look at things. 🙄 And those connotations, too. It carries a certain undertone of threat. I honestly think we need to look at this differently. If certain men are constantly hovering around women who clearly aren't interested, there should be some kind of boundary in place. It feels like we need rules to prevent men from encroaching on the space of women who just want to be left alone. 🙄

Since you brought up that particular point, I should clarify that we don't avoid those topics just because we're being sensitive. It’s actually based on some pretty bad experiences we've had with those kinds of debates in the past. To be blunt, we haven't seen any political figures try to weaponize psychiatric diagnoses of homosexuality just to claim they are "normal." We simply have no interest in hosting discussions where one side is labeled as pathological. It honestly never leads anywhere productive; it just devolves into flame wars, trolling, and straight-up insults. The moderation team has, unfortunately, spent far too much time cleaning up the mess left behind by those exact types of arguments.

rapidmaker77 said:Have you ever considered just deleting the post entirely?🙄 Honestly, you should probably just leave it up. There's some genuinely valuable information in there for anyone actually trying to write about this or dig deeper into the subject.

I'm leaving this right here for you. Like I mentioned before, this might have flown on a different subforum, but you can't pull this kind of thing in politics.

rapidmaker77 said:Honestly, I just can't wrap my head around it. How is this kind of one-sided thinking even allowed on a public forum? It’s a discussion space, for crying out loud. 🤷

Go ahead and ask the owner of this PUBLIC forum.

rapidmaker77 said:Is it really becoming a thing now? Apparently, saying that nearsightedness is just a vision impairment is somehow "offensive" because it might hurt the feelings of people who wear glasses. I mean, honestly.🙄

If you brought up politics, you’d probably get wiped from the board. And honestly, even a post about being nearsighted would likely get flagged, since we aren't exactly running a medical forum here.

rapidmaker77 said:Congrats on that masterclass in public self-delusion! *claps*

Thanks for all the kind words. I really appreciate it.

Thomas Williams23 said:On top of everything else, there’s this other subforum where people are openly arguing that homosexuality is a disorder. To make matters worse, the whole discussion is being led by two highly respected moderators. You can't really even call them out on it, because they're both actual scientists who back up every single point they make with peer-reviewed research papers.
Here’s the proof I was talking about: I was reading through some old threads today and stumbled upon this discussion about the recent shifts in political leadership. It’s funny how much things change when you actually stop to look at them. There seems to be a lot of noise lately regarding the DNC and their internal maneuvering. It feels like every time we think we have a handle on where the party is headed, a new headline drops in TIME that throws everything into chaos. I find myself sitting here, just trying to make sense of the constant churn. It’s exhausting, really. I tend to overthink these things, which probably isn't my best quality. I remember talking to rustydrifter10 about this a while back. We were both wondering if the current media cycle—especially with all the heavy hitters like CNN and AP constantly breathing down everyone's necks—is actually helping us understand the truth or just making us more polarized. It’s a tough question. Sometimes I feel like I'm just waiting for moderator and supermoderator to step in and clear the air, but even they can't fix the underlying tension in the country. It makes me wonder about the role of institutions like the FBI in all this. There is so much scrutiny on them lately. It feels like we are living through a period where nothing is quite what it seems on the surface. I try to stay calm and objective, but it's hard not to get a little cynical sometimes. I suppose that's just part of growing older. You start looking for the substance beneath the shouting, though finding it feels harder every year.

So, my colleague can just make the move over there without any hassle.
Thomas Williams23 Thomas Williams23 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Jun 2013
#19 ·
Ryan Vaughn7 said:So, my colleague can just move over there without any trouble.

Sure, you're clearly the bigger scientist than all of them.

Instead of actually addressing the criticism by asking questions or reconsidering your position, you'd rather just keep blowing your own horn and stubbornly silencing anyone who tries to speak up.

She’ll be fine without this debate, and you'll still be lurking around here for years to come. Honestly, it's a tragedy for the community, because the dream would be to have these topics exist and people actually talking, but without you being part of it...

Ah, those idealistic dreams, always ruined by some extremist living on the fringes of sanity...

👋
silentviper19 silentviper19 Active Member
117 messages
joined Mar 2013
#20 ·
rapidmaker77 said:Hold on, are you seriously suggesting that nearly four thousand psychiatrists voting to label homosexuality as a disorder makes them narrow-minded?
da je homosex. poremećaj zatucano 😲

And you think we can just vote our way to some grand "TRUTH" regarding
worldviews and personal beliefs—things we shouldn't be forced to follow under threat of being shut down?

Do you really believe that if someone views homosexuality as a disorder, they're just "old-fashioned," while you, by disagreeing, are somehow at the bleeding edge of humanity? 😲 😲

It’s wild to me how you don't see that there isn't such a thing as an objective truth when it comes to ideas that can't be "objectified" or decided by a majority vote.

If a group of psychiatrists voted saying God doesn't exist, would you go out there with a police baton or use your moderator mouse to delete anyone who dared to question that consensus regarding God or HUMAN IDEAS AND BELIEFS? 😲

Are you just lying to yourself and everyone else here, pulling things out of context and making up stories?

Of course they were narrow-minded. Honestly, a huge chunk of them weren't just closed-minded, they were hateful, fascists, racists, and just plain ignorant.
Back in the 70s, clinics were still blasting people with electroshock therapy for every little psychotic episode... I mean, do you honestly think a psychiatrist from Alabama or Arkansas was going to look at their profession with total objectivity, completely free from the influence of their surroundings or those crazy Christian fanatics of that era? No way, they weren't.

You think they started that vote just for fun? Not even close. It was the only way gay people could get even one official confirmation that they were healthy human beings and not "devils." It was about being able to come out of the closet for five minutes without getting jumped in an alley or actually landing a decent job they were qualified for.

This wasn't a vote on a scientific fact like 2+2=4 where people just weigh in; it was about stopping people from being labeled as "sick" when they aren't.
Imagine if the majority thought you were mentally ill because of your race, and if you dared to say otherwise, you got beaten up because they didn't like how your "illness" manifested.
So what are you supposed to do then, poor soul? Nothing else but try to work with professionals—with psychiatrists—to get an opinion on your specific case.
And then they tell you that you're perfectly healthy.
But then those Christians and others who think you're sick just say, "Oh, she just paid off her psychiatrist; they're still trying to destroy our world".

And finally, there's this desperate move where everyone has to weigh in and vote on whether you're sick or not.
Gay people weren't even happy about having to have people define them that way.
Actually, it was similar with racism; it used to be a sort of unofficial way for experts to state their views, which all countries accepted after WWII, until scientists across Europe and the USA reached a consensus through constant correspondence that a Black person's skull doesn't mean they are some inherently "evil" person incapable of being civilized.
So I'm asking you: do you think Hitler's racist scientists, who measured thousands of skulls across the globe for the sake of their "science" and ideology, were narrow-minded and evil? Or do you not think so??!!
Just answer me that, because you gave me that same shocked look when I said those who voted against gay people were narrow-minded.

Honestly, what you said about psychiatrists voting on whether God exists is just... wow. It’s so silly. I mean, comparing actual living, breathing people to some imaginary supernatural being? That feels pretty low and, frankly, just kind of dim-witted.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads