Twitter Finds New Excuses to Shut Down Folks They Don't Like

I know a topic you can't talk about on this forum that will get you banned. I can talk about it on twitter or anywhere all I want.

Just sayin' . Fair play.

Go into a Trump forum or Trump subreddit and dare question anything he has ever done. Insta ban.

Question Jesus' on a Christian forum and you will meet the same fate.

It goes both ways. The majority of PC culture I'd say is left-wing but it goes both ways.
 
Hatriot said:
Of course. Most cowards on the left want to corner the market on communication and suppress all disagreement as "hate". You say it is a private company but it is using publicly funded assets to provide their one-sided, biased left wing platform. According to your side's Obama Net Neutrality fantasy they should then be regulated. YouTube, Google, Apple and Facebook do the same thing while spending the entire time lying that they are not simply a propaganda arm of the DNC. Just own up to it is all we are asking. You on the left are the true fascist that want to regulate thought, regulate emotion, regulate speech, regulate ideas and I can give many examples. Quit being cowards and admit what your actual motives are.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Brad Parscale, Trump's 2020 campaign manager and major employee in 2016 for digital, didn't use Facebook, Twitter, or Google ads to great success?
 
threads like this always amuse me because some get soooo riled up.

it always reminds me of a meme that is wildly not politically correct.. that compares those trying to win an argument on the internet

this one will have to do though

LOL
 

Attachments

  • the internetmeme.jpeg
    the internetmeme.jpeg
    18.3 KB · Views: 0
Biznatch said:
Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
Click to expand...

... and yet something tells me that you are all for private companies and individuals receiving governmental punishment for "crimes" like not wanting to make a wedding cake with two dudes on it.
 
Master_shake_ said:
here's a thought.

there is more free speech on 4chan than twitter.

gj jack.

there needs to be a competitor to twitter.

how is there not?
Click to expand...
#1, people don't want to put the energy into learning a 2nd name for such thing
#2, people want to be where everyone else is. System B can't interact with System A. System A has 90% of people System B will fail out and that 10% will end up back at system A

We had this problem with early phone companies. We permitted a monopoly to form but it was heavily regulated, sort of. They couldn't jerk people around and deny service unless there was a cost issue.
 
Biznatch said:
Yes, but just about everyone on the forum referencing 'free speech' is inaccurately referring to the 1A. Free speech is not a protected right on a private platform. Feel free to hate it all you want, not use it, and mock it/them to your hearts content. But lets stop defaulting to the 'liberals are blocking the rights free speech' argument. It just obfuscates the actual issue and falls right back into the same right vs left bullshit everyone loves to focus on.
Click to expand...

And that is quite the assumption on your part, especially since you are the one who brought of the 1st Amendment in this thread. The person who mentioned "Free Speech" didn't say anything about the legal nature of Twitter censorship, you are the one who assumed it was a reference to the Constitution.
 
Biznatch said:
Well considering pretty much everyone that says 'free speech' is implying/referencing the first amendment, his statement was at minimum ambiguous.... It's a private platform, there is no 'free speech'. If you don't like their restrictions on who can post or what you can say, then don't use the service. You can't miss/worry/care about how a service restricts what people say if you've never used it. And I can think of at least 1 shiny fake gold example I would not mind them booting from their service....
Click to expand...

You do realize that you are making the same argument he was making? His whole point was that there should be a competitor which offers more free speech as an option.
 
Staples said:
Go into a Trump forum or Trump subreddit and dare question anything he has ever done. Insta ban.

Question Jesus' on a Christian forum and you will meet the same fate.

It goes both ways. The majority of PC culture I'd say is left-wing but it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

Nope. The examples you give are not applicable. Twitter is a general platform for communication. The hypothetical forums you cite are single-purpose and keeping users on topic is to be expected.
 
Staples said:
I know a topic you can't talk about on this forum that will get you banned. I can talk about it on twitter or anywhere all I want.

Just sayin' . Fair play.

Go into a Trump forum or Trump subreddit and dare question anything he has ever done. Insta ban.

Question Jesus' on a Christian forum and you will meet the same fate.

It goes both ways. The majority of PC culture I'd say is left-wing but it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples and oranges here. You literally are taking fringe forums that are specifically designed for a certain segment and comparing it to a service that is designed for anyone.
 
Biznatch said:
Same here. People can say whatever the fuck they want. Doesn't mean they won't suffer consequences for it though. But crying 'OMG muh free speech' on a private megacorporations platform is just dumb. They can allow/restrict whatever they want, it's their service that they are paying for, and you can use/not use it.
Click to expand...

Being able to do it, and should do it are totally separate issues. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their opinion about a product they are using. In fact, people should absolutely be voicing their opinion about the product. The company should then listen to the consumers and at least attempt to give them what they want. This is actually partially what Twitter is doing, but they are listening to the louder fringe groups and attempting to placate them. The actual problem is the majority is not vocal enough to shout down the fringe groups that are controlling the narrative. And the more the fringe group controls the narrative the more they start convincing the majority. That is what is happening in our society now and it's pretty ridiculous.
 
The advertisers probably want those fringe groups that care too much and use it a ton. The ads are important, the tweets between are noise.
 
NoOther said:
Being able to do it, and should do it are totally separate issues. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their opinion about a product they are using. In fact, people should absolutely be voicing their opinion about the product. The company should then listen to the consumers and at least attempt to give them what they want. This is actually partially what Twitter is doing, but they are listening to the louder fringe groups and attempting to placate them. The actual problem is the majority is not vocal enough to shout down the fringe groups that are controlling the narrative. And the more the fringe group controls the narrative the more they start convincing the majority. That is what is happening in our society now and it's pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying the fringe groups are... effectively communicating as witnessed by a greater adoption of their views? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that, due to their success in using platforms to spread their ideas, they shouldn't be allowed to use those platforms?

I'm not very quick on the uptake; is that what you're saying?
 
Joust said:
So, you're saying the fringe groups are... effectively communicating as witnessed by a greater adoption of their views? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that, due to their success in using platforms to spread their ideas, they shouldn't be allowed to use those platforms?

I'm not very quick on the uptake; is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that ithe majority want more free speech, however, a very vocal minority want certain speech censored. These media platforms are catering to the more vocal minority. If the majority really wants to have more free speech, they should and need to speak up. I do not at all advocate for silencing minority groups or limiting their access.

EDIT: The 'shout down' reference was more as imagery in a public forum. The loudest segment is most likely going to get their way. So if the majority truly want something, they need to speak louder than the minority, thus 'shout down'. That was also very specific to controlling the narrative as well, not in general principle.
 
NoOther said:
That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that ithe majority want more free speech, however, a very vocal minority want certain speech censored. These media platforms are catering to the more vocal minority. If the majority really wants to have more free speech, they should and need to speak up. I do not at all advocate for silencing minority groups or limiting their access.

EDIT: The 'shout down' reference was more as imagery in a public forum. The loudest segment is most likely going to get their way. So if the majority truly want something, they need to speak louder than the minority, thus 'shout down'. That was also very specific to controlling the narrative as well, not in general principle.
Click to expand...
Ah. Thanks for clarifying.
 
kdh said:
I see zero problem in twitter banning or shadow banning accounts. Free speech isnt real on the internet. You using someone else's service is at the mercy of how that service decides to run their platform. If you don't like being censored on the internet, there are plenty of server hosting companies out there that you can rent a server from, and you can post just about what ever content you want on said rented server.
Click to expand...

Curiously there are server hostings that don't allow certain activities, which limits that freedom. And then it is all the government spy stuff.
 
haste. said:
Wasting your time. I've tried to get this thru the blinders of the usual suspects but they won't beleive it. There is a new interruptratation that hate speech is "free speech" lately.
Click to expand...

Ummm, it is. Unless it is incitement to violence or a call to action, hate speech *is* free speech... from a governmental standpoint. It's not a new "interruptratation" (?).

Whether you want to allow it on your private platform is a separate issue.

The overclassification of unpleasant speech with hate speech is frequently issue. See the JP channel 4 interview for the classic example where the interviewer incorrectly oversimplifies what he says into what could be considered hate speech. That is what is happening on twatter, youturd and facepuke - all of whom give the public impression that they are free an open but then implement policies that are in opposition to that public persona.

It is perfectly acceptable - even laudable - to call them out on the hypocrisy.

BB
 
Biznatch said:
Yes, but just about everyone on the forum referencing 'free speech' is inaccurately referring to the 1A. Free speech is not a protected right on a private platform. Feel free to hate it all you want, not use it, and mock it/them to your hearts content. But lets stop defaulting to the 'liberals are blocking the rights free speech' argument. It just obfuscates the actual issue and falls right back into the same right vs left bullshit everyone loves to focus on.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between de facto and de jure censorship. Or, put another way, there is a difference between a legal restriction on freedom of speech and a cultural restriction of the same. Both can still lead to the same end: people are silenced.

I don't pretend to have the answer - it's a thorny problem. There is a difference between some small-ish web forum silencing some shit they don't like, though, and major social media platforms doing the same. The former has little effect on your overall ability to speak - just go somewhere else, the latter definitely does - where are you going to go? It approaches something like de facto censorship.

I make no arguments for specific policies or laws around this - those would probably cause more trouble than they are worth anyway. It would be best for all, I think, if major social media platforms erred on the side of permissiveness though. It would cause a lot less trouble.
 
Hatriot said:
Of course. Most cowards on the left want to corner the market on communication and suppress all disagreement as "hate". You say it is a private company but it is using publicly funded assets to provide their one-sided, biased left wing platform. According to your side's Obama Net Neutrality fantasy they should then be regulated. YouTube, Google, Apple and Facebook do the same thing while spending the entire time lying that they are not simply a propaganda arm of the DNC. Just own up to it is all we are asking. You on the left are the true fascist that want to regulate thought, regulate emotion, regulate speech, regulate ideas and I can give many examples. Quit being cowards and admit what your actual motives are.
Click to expand...

You seem reasonable and open minded. :facepalm:

Let me guess...you think you're part of the solution, rather than part of the problem? :rolleyes:
 
Twitter is now a defacto wing of ISIS, defending ISIS and Hamas accounts on Twitter, and at the same time banning accounts from authors and comic strip writers who are ex-Muslim from speaking out about Islamic terrorism and the glorification of it in media.
 
Twitter is terrible, but it's a nice way to keep up to date with sports w/o watching them.
 
Last edited:
Joust said:
Setting aside governmental criticism and the like, speech that someone else disagrees with, which today is often (maybe always?) labeled "hate speech" is the only kind that needs protecting.

Think on that for a moment.

Oh, I find plenty of speech to be unreasonable, distasteful, inhumane, and wrong. However, it is not - and should not - be our policy to fine or imprision someone simply because of their opinions.

Now, that's not to say that one cannot be liable for what is said. "Fire!" in a movie theater, tortious interference with contract, etc etc. However, the government must regulate on a content-nuetral basis.
Click to expand...
The "Fire" argument. Lovely. Do you not realize what I was referring to and the OP of that post? You have no rights to post whatever you want on a private organization's product just as for years "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Just because people now believe they can be bigots anywhere they please in our current silly society does not mean there isn't going to be repercussions. "Free Speech" protects you from government action, not a private party. And those arguing against this are usually far right that think pure capitalism is the answer... when here's an example of it at work.
 
haste. said:
"Free Speech" protects you from government action, not a private party.
Click to expand...

True on a technical level, but omits an important corollary: if the people are not permissive with regards to speech - in other words, if there is a cultural tendency to want to silence speech that offends some or even many - freedom of speech won't last long. Like I said in my post above, I don't have an easy answer for it, except to say that it would probably be best if major social media platforms erred toward being more permissive, not less, and at least made an attempt to be content neutral. But I certainly don't want to use the government to force them to do it either.

On the one hand, people ought to have thicker skins. OTOH, just because you allow someone to say some nasty shit doesn't mean you need to like it, approve it, or that you cannot speak in turn and express your disdain for whatever they are saying. I'm personally a big fan of letting dickheads out themselves. Don't push them into the shadows. Let folks who are assholes express their dumbassery freely and openly. Don't try to censor them at the government level or even the social media level (it's a little different at the local small forum level like this one, though). Then you know who to avoid, block, mute, and/or cut out from your life :).

More muting. Less banning. That's my general policy.
 
Hatriot said:
... You say it is a private company but it is using publicly funded assets to provide their one-sided, biased left wing platform. According to your side's Obama Net Neutrality fantasy they should then be regulated. YouTube, Google, Apple and Facebook do the same thing while spending the entire time lying that they are not simply a propaganda arm of the DNC. Just own up to it is all we are asking. You on the left are the true fascist that want to regulate thought, regulate emotion, regulate speech, regulate ideas and I can give many examples. Quit being cowards and admit what your actual motives are.
Click to expand...

You mention 'publicly funded assets', which has the implication that Twitter and other social media platforms should not be allowed to silence differing opinions, which means some form of governmental regulation, then go on to complain about Net Neutrality and the like as if you're against regulation. It makes no sense.
 
haste. said:
The "Fire" argument. Lovely. Do you not realize what I was referring to and the OP of that post? You have no rights to post whatever you want on a private organization's product just as for years "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Just because people now believe they can be bigots anywhere they please in our current silly society does not mean there isn't going to be repercussions. "Free Speech" protects you from government action, not a private party. And those arguing against this are usually far right that think pure capitalism is the answer... when here's an example of it at work.
Click to expand...
haste. said:
There is a new interruptratation that hate speech is "free speech" lately.
Click to expand...

First, it's more of a principle than a mere argument. Second, you were seemingly clear. Someone else responded similarly.
 
haste. said:
"Free Speech" protects you from government action, not a private party.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America protects us from government action. Free Speech is a concept that transcends legal requirements. If this falsehood is allowed to perpetuate, we will soon lose any effective platform to exercise our right to Free Speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otg
like this
Joust said:
So, you're saying the fringe groups are... effectively communicating as witnessed by a greater adoption of their views? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that, due to their success in using platforms to spread their ideas, they shouldn't be allowed to use those platforms?

I'm not very quick on the uptake; is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...
Some people believe we need to be protected from certain ideas rather than pull them out in the open and give them the light of day. That's the best way it to spin it.

Some people believe the established media doesn't want to compete with some dude with a webcam, they just can't beat them on cost. They would only be able to beat them on actual reporting. But 90% of news is conjecture/analysis these days. You have 1-4 six figure salaries pontificating on set in a multi-million dollar studio calling it news.

Some people believe there are several bullshit narratives echoed in the incestuous established media and they don't want it questioned by anyone, especially if they are able to communicate it with video proof.
 
All I have to say is there is 4chan and voat for those of you who are triggered.

They allow more "free speech" than most websites. Ironically, all the freedom has made both pretty terrible places on the internet.
 
haste. said:
The "Fire" argument. Lovely. Do you not realize what I was referring to and the OP of that post? You have no rights to post whatever you want on a private organization's product just as for years "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Just because people now believe they can be bigots anywhere they please in our current silly society does not mean there isn't going to be repercussions. "Free Speech" protects you from government action, not a private party. And those arguing against this are usually far right that think pure capitalism is the answer... when here's an example of it at work.
Click to expand...

Free Speech & Freedom of the press are moral principles which got translated into a law at the time. At the time, no one imagined just about every aspect of commerce would be handled by a few or one hegemonic corporation. They could only conceive of a government having the ability to suppress your speech and press rights everywhere easily. Just because its legal now for a private entity to do it, doesn't make it right and make people criticizing it wrong or out of place for doing so.

And it's ironic, because companies like twitter only care about controlling speech because they would be harassed and pressured by mobs of the easily offended. And when they are mobbed by the easily offended, are you defending their rights to control their platform?
 
  • Like
Reactions: otg
like this
Biznatch said:
And now you're assuming that because I argue about the stupid polarized arguments from the right about 'liburals' I'm on the left.... I don't associate with either bullshit party, and there are things I agree/disagree with on both sides. But the right is doing FAR more damage to the average 'mucan (non-corporation/1%) than the left currently is. I'm not saying that can't/won't switch after the November midterms, but if you can't at least acknowledge that, you're part of the issue.





Yes, but just about everyone on the forum referencing 'free speech' is inaccurately referring to the 1A. Free speech is not a protected right on a private platform. Feel free to hate it all you want, not use it, and mock it/them to your hearts content. But lets stop defaulting to the 'liberals are blocking the rights free speech' argument. It just obfuscates the actual issue and falls right back into the same right vs left bullshit everyone loves to focus on.
Click to expand...

Except there's this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
 
PantherBlitz said:
... and yet something tells me that you are all for private companies and individuals receiving governmental punishment for "crimes" like not wanting to make a wedding cake with two dudes on it.
Click to expand...

No. It's their business, they can serve who they want (no shoes/shirt no service kinda thing). They'll be shooting themselves in the foot with the availability of the internet/review sites. Look what happened to the shops that discriminated against people for stupid 'christian' reasons. They got destroyed on yelp and lost a ton of business.

Now the crazy christian working for the government refusing to sign legal marriage certificates because 'jesus told me so', should be jailed. The law has already been decided, whether she agrees with it or not.


jardows said:
And that is quite the assumption on your part, especially since you are the one who brought of the 1st Amendment in this thread. The person who mentioned "Free Speech" didn't say anything about the legal nature of Twitter censorship, you are the one who assumed it was a reference to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll clarify. No one has free speech on a private platform. PERIOD. You agree to THEIR terms when you sign up. Don't like it, tough shit, don't use it. That's one of the reasons I've never signed up for or even navigated to twitter.


NoOther said:
You do realize that you are making the same argument he was making? His whole point was that there should be a competitor which offers more free speech as an option.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of competitors to twitter, so not sure what your point is. If people choose to stay on some shitty service that is silencing them, that's their problem. Change services (or create your own) and encourage others to do the same. But stop with the 'omg my free speech'. There's no such thing on a private service.
 
Biznatch said:
There are plenty of competitors to twitter, so not sure what your point is. If people choose to stay on some shitty service that is silencing them, that's their problem. Change services (or create your own) and encourage others to do the same. But stop with the 'omg my free speech'. There's no such thing on a private service.
Click to expand...

Some people do use other services. Also people have a right to complain about a service they are using. You can most definitely have free speech on a private service, so saying there is no such thing is false. You are conflating legal rights with consumer demands. Consumers always have the right to demand more out of their service and consumers should definitely voice their opinions about the services they use. Of course businesses don't have to listen to them, but there is zero reason for them not to voice their opinions of the service.
 
NoOther said:
Some people do use other services. Also people have a right to complain about a service they are using. You can most definitely have free speech on a private service, so saying there is no such thing is false. You are conflating legal rights with consumer demands. Consumers always have the right to demand more out of their service and consumers should definitely voice their opinions about the services they use. Of course businesses don't have to listen to them, but there is zero reason for them not to voice their opinions of the service.
Click to expand...

True, and the company has no obligation to meet those demands. The only way to actually fight back is leaving the service. Complaining doesn't mean much to them nowadays since everyone likes to complain, but no one actually does anything or leaves the service.

And my issue is not people complaining about twitter's new policies. Go right ahead an complain/voice concerns. It's when it gets reduced to the 'omg liburalz are stifling muh conservative free speech!' argument. Anything they don't like is liberals out to get them. Lets all hate twitter for being twitter, and leave the stupid polarized political arguments for the MSM talking points. Like fox being the most watched 'news', yet constantly complain about/attack the MSM for lying....
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
There's a difference between de facto and de jure censorship. Or, put another way, there is a difference between a legal restriction on freedom of speech and a cultural restriction of the same. Both can still lead to the same end: people are silenced.

I don't pretend to have the answer - it's a thorny problem. There is a difference between some small-ish web forum silencing some shit they don't like, though, and major social media platforms doing the same. The former has little effect on your overall ability to speak - just go somewhere else, the latter definitely does - where are you going to go? It approaches something like de facto censorship.

I make no arguments for specific policies or laws around this - those would probably cause more trouble than they are worth anyway. It would be best for all, I think, if major social media platforms erred on the side of permissiveness though. It would cause a lot less trouble.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I did not see it before. I have been doing most forum-cruising on my phone and miss things occasionally.
 
Biznatch said:
True, and the company has no obligation to meet those demands. The only way to actually fight back is leaving the service. Complaining doesn't mean much to them nowadays since everyone likes to complain, but no one actually does anything or leaves the service.

And my issue is not people complaining about twitter's new policies. Go right ahead an complain/voice concerns. It's when it gets reduced to the 'omg liburalz are stifling muh conservative free speech!' argument. Anything they don't like is liberals out to get them. Lets all hate twitter for being twitter, and leave the stupid polarized political arguments for the MSM talking points. Like fox being the most watched 'news', yet constantly complain about/attack the MSM for lying....
Click to expand...

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about this, but is it merely the terminology? If they said, "Major lines of mass-adopted public communication are suppressing my ability to vocalize my viewpoints because it is in conflict with the operator's own views, and the alternative services are not a viable alternative." -would that be more palatable?
 
Biznatch said:
True, and the company has no obligation to meet those demands. The only way to actually fight back is leaving the service. Complaining doesn't mean much to them nowadays since everyone likes to complain, but no one actually does anything or leaves the service.
Click to expand...

That is categorically wrong though. People complaining is the very reason Twitter changed its policies...

Biznatch said:
And my issue is not people complaining about twitter's new policies. Go right ahead an complain/voice concerns. It's when it gets reduced to the 'omg liburalz are stifling muh conservative free speech!' argument. Anything they don't like is liberals out to get them. Lets all hate twitter for being twitter, and leave the stupid polarized political arguments for the MSM talking points. Like fox being the most watched 'news', yet constantly complain about/attack the MSM for lying....
Click to expand...

I don't think it is anything, I think it is very specific things. And there is research showing there is an abnormal censorship of conservative ideas on both MSM and social media platforms. And it is not just limited to those platforms, it is also found in College and Universities, as well as public school systems.
 
jpm100 jardows Joust - Guys I'm just always going to disagree with that point of view, and there is a lot of spin in the responses. I know I stirred the pot here with some people on [H], but its the same everytime something like this is posted (leftist, SJW, censors, Free Speech is an idea being stripped, etc.). Free Speech in and of itself refers to the 1st. That is most people's interruption. There are many different avenues where people with similar thought as those being shown the door at Twitter available where like minded people will encourage it. Twitter has decided to eliminate some terroristic or hateful speech, or for that matter any speech they deem harmful to the bottom line, from their platform. That doesn't mean there are not other places to voice your opinion... it just so happens that the majority of people utilizing a very large for profit system do not agree with most of that rhetoric. Saying that Twitter cannot decide to disallow that behavior contradicts your initial argument as they are expressing their right to say that is not welcomed. If there weren't a billion other places to spew whatever you want, it would be a problem.

They aren't shutting down the videos you watch with "video proof" other than Youtube and other some other massive organizations (dissociating from what they consider detrimental to their bottom line).

DuronBurgerMan - I don't really use Twitter or the like other than what comes up for sports news on a google search, but do know many friends that do. What we are forgetting here is that bigoted behavior is becoming common place. Awful, hate spewed bs we are just supposed to mute instead of call out. Prior to the "Twitter's", there wasn't a platform to hide behind and those that wish too can now be racist and hateful without repercussion (as well as communicate plans/recruit for orgs like ISIS). That's a slippery slope and Twitter has kinda been on the forefront of at least attempting to remove that soapbox.

I'll get ahead of the I'm just an SJW, lefty bullshit I'm sure this response will cause. I'm a right leaning centralist who can't even stomach a minute of CNN/MSNBC because they've become an "opinion news" site/channel and stopped reporting news - the ESPN screamo of news and both make me want to puke. BTW Kyle has a ban hammer for anyone he feels necessary at any time for anything. I was hit with that bad boy years ago on a temp. Are you going to call out Mr. Bennett too? Just asking... JPM is aware of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top