barryofthailand Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Fox and News Corp just happens to be one of the best reporting agencies in the world. Bill Oreilly tells it like it is. Yes sometimes he's wrong, but lots of times all the other news reporting networks are wrong too. Calling for a ban on fox news in Thailand is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. If that's what the OP really wants then go live in a comunist country where things like that are done. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Fox and News Corp just happens to be one of the best reporting agencies in the world.Bill Oreilly tells it like it is. Yes sometimes he's wrong, but lots of times all the other news reporting networks are wrong too. Calling for a ban on fox news in Thailand is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. If that's what the OP really wants then go live in a comunist country where things like that are done. Barry ummm Barry ... things like that are done in Thailand OFTEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshbags Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Right up there with O'Reilly's blowhard style... is Sean Hannity, Fox's yappy little Chihuahua Dog, who fancies himself as some sort of Pit Bull, but in reality, is just like a puppy in need of quick smack from a rolled-up newspaper for the "mess" he created in the corner. That's a good metaphor for his words... they're just a pile of cr#p. Hannity is the guy who went apeshit about the Brazilian who was shot during the July 7th terrorist attack investigations. Saying he was murdered by armed police without even giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. I can just imagine the "Excuse me sir are you carrying any bombs and do you mind if we search you ? " followed by an explosion and human parts flying all over the place. You what !!!!!!!! O.K. he was found to be innocent of terrorism, but at the time it happened no one knew if this was the case or not. Whatever your take is on the incident, and there are plenty, his actions didn,t exactly help him prior to being shot as a suspect. Compare that if you like to the actions of bombing civilian targets with multiple innocent victims in them and this gives you a true measure of the hypocrisy of foxes stance along with it,s presenters and the backing of unchecked Israeli action in Lebanon. Most of the bombed targets where not hidding Hesbola and the areas where flattened killing innocent civilians many of who where children. Nor was the UN post either !!!!!!! Airborne bombing attacks and practically complete destruction of the countries infrastructure hardly compare with those of the rockets. I didn,t recollect anyone going apeshit over these murders or as i mentioned in an earlier post:- ( In the de briefing after the cease fire ) "The U.S. and Israeli governments didn,t even mention them or offer remorse / apologies " for the hundreds who died and again where murdered without impunity and therefore not of any significance and deserving of such an action. Can you imagine what would have happened if they,d been innocent Americans, even one come to that. Before anyone has a go at me i am not taking sides, but defending the innocents and the needless and total destruction of civilian targets and desrespect for human lives. I am not a racist either and so long as it,s peaceful, any of the many religions in this diverse world of ours is also welcome in my opinion. Fox news is just a bias, paid for cable network, voicing the opinions of it,s sponsors,the administration and it,s owners. Right and wrong doesn,t even come into to play unless it favours their political agenda in my humble opinion. This follows the flow of the debate and is not off topic by the way, otherwise most of the preceeding posts are also. marshbags Edited August 20, 2006 by marshbags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) C'mon ... Fox just panders to its market ...... old white guys bemoaning the loss of the 'good old boy' way of life.... sad to be them however .... the original topic ... should they be banned in Thailand? probably not ... those same good old boys apparently have moved here or want to ... thinking that maybe them having a bit of cash will make it ok here ... <then they whine about not paying 5 baht in Pattaya on the Songtheaw> Edited August 20, 2006 by jdinasia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Right up there with O'Reilly's blowhard style... is Sean Hannity, Fox's yappy little Chihuahua Dog, who fancies himself as some sort of Pit Bull, but in reality, is just like a puppy in need of quick smack from a rolled-up newspaper for the "mess" he created in the corner. That's a good metaphor for his words... they're just a pile of cr#p. Hannity is the guy who went apeshit about the Brazilian who was shot during the July 7th terrorist attack investigations. Saying he was murdered by armed police without even giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. blah, blah blah... Who are you kidding? Hannity was right. The Brazilian guy WAS murdered by armed police without giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. He was innocent and that is a fact. Israel was defending itself from Hizbollah terrorists who attacked them first and are an elected part of the Lebanese government and who purposely hide rocket launchers that are sending rockets into Israel among civilians who supported the attack on Israel by an overwhelming majority. You reap what you sew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charma Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Hannity was right. The Brazilian guy WAS murdered by armed police without giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. He was innocent and that is a fact. Would you care to tell us how you justify this statement. Please enlighten us as to what particalr facts you have to support the charge of murder against the police officers involved. I am sure the independent police complaints commission in the UK would be happy to have your information. Let me guess....you've been watching Fox? This has gone a bit off topic, so going back the point, the fact is that O'Reilly made some outragious comments about Thailand at the same time as details filed in a complaint about him included his accounts of his own experiences at a sex show in Thailand. Bet that doesn't get aired on Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Well, back on topic. If there's any boycotting to be done it should be directed toward CNN. What a totally biased 'news' reporting outfit that is - blatent support for Hizzbollah. Shameful & disgusting but it's been that way since its inception. Who other than a commie-appeasing socialist like Ted Turner could marry Hanoi Jane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 lol ... Boon ... yoou lost the Hanoi Jane/Tonkin Gulf thing already elsewhere ..... but ... read above ... the whole thread and catch my replies to UG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Hannity was right. The Brazilian guy WAS murdered by armed police without giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. He was innocent and that is a fact. Would you care to tell us how you justify this statement. Please enlighten us as to what particalr facts you have to support the charge of murder against the police officers involved. There are TONS of articles on this that have nothing to do with FOX. Will this one do? telegraph.co.uk Police used 'dum dum' bullets to kill de Menezes By John Steele (Filed: 16/11/2005) The Brazilian man shot dead by police in the mistaken belief that he was a suicide bomber was killed with a type of bullet banned in warfare under international convention, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The firing of hollow point ammunition into the head of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, is believed to be the first use of the bullets by British police. Hollow-point bullets: used at the discretion of police chiefs It will re-ignite controversy around the shooting, at Stockwell Underground station, south London, on July 22. Modern hollow point bullets are descendants of the expanding "dum dum" ammunition created by the British in an arsenal of the same name near Calcutta, in India, at the end of the 19th century and outlawed under the Hague Declaration of 1899. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 The whole Fox/Thailand issue has caught Stickmans attention. Believe me, he is NOT amused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charma Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Hannity was right. The Brazilian guy WAS murdered by armed police without giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. He was innocent and that is a fact. Would you care to tell us how you justify this statement. Please enlighten us as to what particalr facts you have to support the charge of murder against the police officers involved. There are TONS of articles on this that have nothing to do with FOX. Will this one do? telegraph.co.uk Police used 'dum dum' bullets to kill de Menezes By John Steele (Filed: 16/11/2005) The Brazilian man shot dead by police in the mistaken belief that he was a suicide bomber was killed with a type of bullet banned in warfare under international convention, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The firing of hollow point ammunition into the head of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, is believed to be the first use of the bullets by British police. Hollow-point bullets: used at the discretion of police chiefs It will re-ignite controversy around the shooting, at Stockwell Underground station, south London, on July 22. Modern hollow point bullets are descendants of the expanding "dum dum" ammunition created by the British in an arsenal of the same name near Calcutta, in India, at the end of the 19th century and outlawed under the Hague Declaration of 1899. I am pleased you have decided to clarify your earlier post. I presume from the fact that you have highlighted the word "mistaken" in your post that you retract the charge of murder you made previously. I do not think Fox would ever be as magnanimous, which is perhaps why you had to look elsewhere for your quote. The shooting was what is known in the UK as a "co*k up". It was a tragedy, but it was not murder. Regarding the bullets, well UK police have always had a "shoot to kill" policy. They have never been trained to "maim" or "disable". This was made more pertinant by the emergence of suicide bombers in London, where the need for an instantaneous kill was paramount. I cannot comment on the legality of the particular bullets used. However, I do believe there is a huge difference between warfare and the threat of a suicide bomber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaBlue05 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Hannity is the guy who went apeshit about the Brazilian who was shot during the July 7th terrorist attackinvestigations. Saying he was murdered by armed police without even giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. I marshbags That's kind of surprising. Hannity usually defends the police regardless....even if he has a video showing the police handcuffing a suspect then shooting him in the head....he will usually say there were likely "mitigating circumstances" not apparent from the video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 What I would not give for 5 minutes alone with Hannity.......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Hannity was right. The Brazilian guy WAS murdered by armed police without giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. He was innocent and that is a fact. Would you care to tell us how you justify this statement. Please enlighten us as to what particalr facts you have to support the charge of murder against the police officers involved. There are TONS of articles on this that have nothing to do with FOX. Will this one do? telegraph.co.uk Police used 'dum dum' bullets to kill de Menezes By John Steele (Filed: 16/11/2005) The Brazilian man shot dead by police in the mistaken belief that he was a suicide bomber was killed with a type of bullet banned in warfare under international convention, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The firing of hollow point ammunition into the head of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, is believed to be the first use of the bullets by British police. Hollow-point bullets: used at the discretion of police chiefs It will re-ignite controversy around the shooting, at Stockwell Underground station, south London, on July 22. Modern hollow point bullets are descendants of the expanding "dum dum" ammunition created by the British in an arsenal of the same name near Calcutta, in India, at the end of the 19th century and outlawed under the Hague Declaration of 1899. I am pleased you have decided to clarify your earlier post. I presume from the fact that you have highlighted the word "mistaken" in your post that you retract the charge of murder you made previously. I do not think Fox would ever be as magnanimous, which is perhaps why you had to look elsewhere for your quote. The shooting was what is known in the UK as a "co*k up". It was a tragedy, but it was not murder. Regarding the bullets, well UK police have always had a "shoot to kill" policy. They have never been trained to "maim" or "disable". This was made more pertinant by the emergence of suicide bombers in London, where the need for an instantaneous kill was paramount. I cannot comment on the legality of the particular bullets used. However, I do believe there is a huge difference between warfare and the threat of a suicide bomber. Talk about pedantic: The Brazilian guy WAS killed by armed police without giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. He was innocent and that is a fact. Now, does that make you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmart Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 What utter crap to politicize the accidental shooting of that Brazilian guy. He was challenged to stop, but he was illegal and not fluent in English, so he ran - wearing bulky clothing. This is of course just after the Madrid and London bombings, so you'll forgive the cops for being jumpy. In that split-second to decide, the cops shot him. More than once okay. Everyone in Europe is jumpy right now. Freedoms that were so hard earned from the last century have been squandered on people who don't deserve, and have no right to them. The UK's defining moment was beating off the attack of the European Nazis and Fascists, and then it let the Cultural and religious bigots through the back door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 What utter crap to politicize the accidental shooting of that Brazilian guy. He was challenged to stop, but he was illegal and not fluent in English, so he ran - wearing bulky clothing. This is of course just after the Madrid and London bombings, so you'll forgive the cops for being jumpy. In that split-second to decide, the cops shot him. More than once okay. Everyone in Europe is jumpy right now. Freedoms that were so hard earned from the last century have been squandered on people who don't deserve, and have no right to them. The UK's defining moment was beating off the attack of the European Nazis and Fascists, and then it let the Cultural and religious bigots through the back door. For the record, I'm on your side, but Hannity was still correct. You can bet that boys momma thinks the police murdered her son, and - other than legally - she is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charma Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 What utter crap to politicize the accidental shooting of that Brazilian guy. He was challenged to stop, but he was illegal and not fluent in English, so he ran - wearing bulky clothing. This is of course just after the Madrid and London bombings, so you'll forgive the cops for being jumpy. In that split-second to decide, the cops shot him. More than once okay. Everyone in Europe is jumpy right now. Freedoms that were so hard earned from the last century have been squandered on people who don't deserve, and have no right to them. The UK's defining moment was beating off the attack of the European Nazis and Fascists, and then it let the Cultural and religious bigots through the back door. For the record, I'm on your side, but Hannity was still correct. You can bet that boys momma thinks the police murdered her son, and - other than legally - she is right. Ulysses G, you would make an excellent Fox reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool Water Palace Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I wouldn't mind if CNN went away. Haven't heard any comments about BBCs coverage of this thing. I'm sure they would never sensationalize it Think again - saw a BBC piece few min ago - about thailand and its sex trafficing scene. I expect this will go on for weeks until some other news story takes its place. In what context? and on BBC in UK or BBC World? Reference would be useful, as it may still be available on BBC website. There may also be a World Service version available. I recall no false emphasis in reports on BBC News24, nor Sky news in fact, except references to alleged sex offences in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest endure Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 What utter crap to politicize the accidental shooting of that Brazilian guy. He was challenged to stop, but he was illegal and not fluent in English, so he ran - wearing bulky clothing. This is of course just after the Madrid and London bombings, so you'll forgive the cops for being jumpy. In that split-second to decide, the cops shot him. More than once okay. Everyone in Europe is jumpy right now. Freedoms that were so hard earned from the last century have been squandered on people who don't deserve, and have no right to them. The UK's defining moment was beating off the attack of the European Nazis and Fascists, and then it let the Cultural and religious bigots through the back door. He was not challenged to stop. He did not run. He was not an illegal immigrant. All these 'facts' were put out by the Met in the hours after the shooting. He walked into the station, bought a newspaper, used his prepaid travel card to pass through the barrier and walked slowly down the escalator. The only time he moved quickly was to get into the train. He was followed onto the train by 3 surveillance officers and then by armed police who challenged him. He stood up, they forced him back into his seat and then fired 11 shots, 7 of which hit him in the head and one in the shoulder. He reached the station by travelling on a bus. This was the day after the bus bombings in London. If he was such a threat why was he allowed to get on the bus? It might not have been murder but it was massive incompetence followed almost immediately by lies and spin to cover that incompetence up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk_falang Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 One of the things I really admire about Thai people, is that they can accept the fact that their opinion means diddly squat - in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 lol ... Boon ... yoou lost the Hanoi Jane/Tonkin Gulf thing already elsewhere .....but ... read above ... the whole thread and catch my replies to UG Not debating the Viet Nam War here jd, but whether or not Fox News should be boycotted. Before Fox came along, the public was literally brainwashed by left wing propaganda from CNN, BBC, NY Times etc. Fox might take the administration line more strongly than 'fair & balanced' but it's useful as a balance to the liberal press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 lol ... Boon ... yoou lost the Hanoi Jane/Tonkin Gulf thing already elsewhere ..... but ... read above ... the whole thread and catch my replies to UG Not debating the Viet Nam War here jd, but whether or not Fox News should be boycotted. Before Fox came along, the public was literally brainwashed by left wing propaganda from CNN, BBC, NY Times etc. Fox might take the administration line more strongly than 'fair & balanced' but it's useful as a balance to the liberal press. Thanks Boon ..... I was not the one that brought up Hanoi Jane in the thread .... But really ... Fox is news for the White older folks that just can't face the fact that the USA is changing ... ethnically ... age ....religions etc ... EVERYTHING is changing ... and Fox cries the loudest for the old days when Gays were not talked about ... and pre-vietnam when people wouldn't dare say "this war is WRONG". The USA is changing ...so what. I don't live there. I don't really care! Just so long as my property values keep going up enough to support me here in Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charma Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I wouldn't mind if CNN went away. Haven't heard any comments about BBCs coverage of this thing. I'm sure they would never sensationalize it Think again - saw a BBC piece few min ago - about thailand and its sex trafficing scene. I expect this will go on for weeks until some other news story takes its place. In what context? and on BBC in UK or BBC World? Reference would be useful, as it may still be available on BBC website. There may also be a World Service version available. I recall no false emphasis in reports on BBC News24, nor Sky news in fact, except references to alleged sex offences in Thailand. Here is an example article of BBC reporting on Thailand. It was posted yesterday regarding the Karr/teacher thing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5266716.stm Did not see any part of the story that was sensationalist or unfair on Thailand, other than references to it's reputation for attracting paedophiles and Gary Glitter, but states that this reputation applies to South East Asia as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronz28 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Deleted duplicate post Edited August 20, 2006 by ronz28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronz28 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) I think if I were a farang teacher in Thailand, I would be signing up with a lawyer for a class action lawsuit against Fox News for those libelous and slanderous statements they have been saying about English teachers in Thailand. For that matter, all the parents in Thailand should signup for another class action lawsuit against Fox news for stating they sell millions of their underage children into the sex trade. The serious and permanent damage Fox News is doing to their reputations deserves compensation. I think they have done so much damage payment will eventually bankrupt them. You don't hear such lies from other news organizations because they know they will be sued. Edited August 20, 2006 by ronz28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantarei Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Bush won two elections. It is a shame, but it is a fact. Bush is the most right wing president in US history. And right wing FOX is the coutry's top news network.True, most Americans (again to their shame) don't even bother to vote, so how to factor in the apathetic and apolitical, who knows. The US not right wing? You decide. No, the US is not right wing but empty, “progressive” minds tend to generalize. The US needs to reform its presidential election process. “There are a variety of ways in which the elections at a local level are held….One is the caucus system. Others are the so-called primaries: closed primaries, open primaries and blanket primaries. The word "caucus" itself comes from the Native People of America and means ‘to gather together and make a great noise.’ …..A caucus is a series of party meetings at every level of party organisation within a state; wards, precincts, districts and counties. At each level, party members vote for delegates who will take their opinions on the choice of presidential candidate forward to the next level. Ultimately the state conventions choose the delegates to the national convention..... Caucus meetings tend to be dominated by party activists who are sufficiently committed to the party’s cause to take part in each stage. Supporters of the caucus system believe that it leads to the best candidate being selected. However, meetings are closed (i.e. not opened up to anyone other than a party member) and historically they were linked to a small group of men in Congress and in state legislatures who selected party candidates for national and state office including presidential candidates.” ”Closed primaries offer a greater degree of participation than caucuses in that voting is not confined to party members. Those voters who have declared an affiliation to a party are allowed to participate in that party’s primary. This declaration can literally be done as the voter enters the polling office with a statement that s/he voted for the Democrats at the last election and that they intend voting in this primary; assuming this was a Democrats primary !! Open primaries allow even greater participation. The voters of a state, regardless of their party affiliation, can participate in either party’s primary but not both. The advantage of this system is that it allows the most popular candidate to be put forward and one who will have appeal across party lines. This, of course, is an advantage. But the purely democratic nature of this system is open to abuse as in the past there have been cases whereby Democrats, for example, have legally voted at a Republican primary, though not at their own, but have voted for what was the worst candidate. The Republicans have done likewise at Democratic primaries. Twenty nine states use this system of voting. Blanket primaries offer the widest possible participation. Voters are allowed to vote in both primary elections of the parties - i.e. at both the Republican and Democrat primaries”. source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/primaries.htm This absurd primaries system results in the nomination of extremists: (1) ‘salon communists’ (politically-correct, filthy-rich bozos, e.g, Gore (tobacco farming, zinc mine), Kerry (gigolo), etc; vs. (2) a born-again missionary of democracy in tribal pseudo-countries. Given the choice, I would rather vote for a missionary than a gigolo even though I am an agnostic. The person most qualified for the office in 2000 was, in my opinion Senator McCain but, obviously, he lost in the primaries. I bet you will not change your baseless opinion about the "right wing" Americans. Too bad the US intervened in WWI, WWII, and in the Balcans. Strangely enough, to the Poles, Chechs, Slovaks, Hungerians, Lithuanians, etc., etc., Americans are liberators, not "rightwingers". Old Europe is perceived in these countries as cowardly weasels (as in the Chamberlain-Deladier pact). "Peace (with terrorists) in our time?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 zzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charma Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 55 posts in three years. I can see why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaBlue05 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 The USA is changing ...so what. I don't live there. I don't really care! Just so long as my property values keep going up enough to support me here in Thailand Everywhere is changing...the demographics are changing. Europe and the US are grasping with an immigration influx that will continue to transform the "normal" culture. It used to be that it took years for changes in culture to become perceptible but it is actually moving along such that you now easily notice changes on a year to year basis. I too hope that my property values continue to increase at least 5 more years. I'll likely cash in my chips then. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshbags Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 (edited) Hannity is the guy who went apeshit about the Brazilian who was shot during the July 7th terrorist attack investigations. Saying he was murdered by armed police without even giving him a chance to show he was innocent and unarmed. I marshbags That's kind of surprising. Hannity usually defends the police regardless....even if he has a video showing the police handcuffing a suspect then shooting him in the head....he will usually say there were likely "mitigating circumstances" not apparent from the video It took me by surprise as i thought it was obviously out of context with reality and why the heck did he go and do that, to go off the rails and loose his cool like he had ben pre progammed to try and undermine security actions that where taken. Obviously he was ordered to have a go at the U.K. for some reason and he kept at it in the days following i might add. That incident by the way was the start of all the cracks starting to appear in their reporting bias and some sort of vendeta against the BBC.????????????????????????????????????? For me as i had questioned several previous actions and comments by commentators but took it as part of their style of reporting. Watching fox is equivalent to brainwashing no brainers and that,s a fact. Their creditability has gone along with their ethics on news reporting and that,s a fact. That,s if it was ever there in the first place ???? marshbags Edited August 21, 2006 by marshbags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now