• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer

Scizyr said:
You have a very black and white perspective when it comes to law enforcement, only its very skewed towards black. Here you're saying the only other solution aside from allowing the FBI to commit felonies is to murder and torture, which I guess in your mind is different from a felony. Playing the devil is monstrous, I'm glad you agree with me that the FBI are monsters.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I made no inference what so ever that the only other option was to commit murder or torture. Do you have a mental disorder?

When you can read and understand coherently reply back and we'll discuss it further. Otherwise, just leave it at we disagree. Fucks sake you would be farther ahead that way then the track your running down now.

And I don't have to rethink anything.

Too bad you know. It seams your sitting so high on that seat of yours you can't actually see anything at all.

At least I give you room for your opinions, your self righteousness is showing no room for mine.

The FBI can't attract talented people because they are corrupt.
Click to expand...
So by your thinking Scizyr, corrupt organizations can't attract talented capable employees?
Click to expand...

Looks like a match to me, except of course my statement was actually a question, I was asking if this is what you meant.

But, I have no desire to travel through the annals of history exploring the origins of the FBI. I am interested in today not yesteryear.

Again, I do not see anything wrong with what the FBI did in this case. It sounds like you do. There it is.

Of course the Judge that issued the warrant didn't and the one that heard and ruled on this case didn't. I suppose that means I have company.
 
Last edited:
Scizyr said:
You have a very black and white perspective when it comes to law enforcement, only its very skewed towards black. Here you're saying the only other solution aside from allowing the FBI to commit felonies is to murder and torture, which I guess in your mind is different from a felony. Playing the devil is monstrous, I'm glad you agree with me that the FBI are monsters.


The moment the website was operated by the FBI they became the owners of the illegal activity, that is no different from authoring it themselves. They facilitated and allowed the dissemination of contraband. Further perpetuating the availability of said contraband. I'm sure as soon as the operator disappeared others began a mass data exodus in order to spawn even more sources. This is the way the internet works, which the FBI still can't comprehend.


You just said child porn itself isn't terrible. Jesus fucking christ man, you should really rethink your position on this. You think their reasoning for hosting a child porn site was to catch people that create child porn? You're delusional.



No, read what I said again. The FBI can't attract talented people because they are corrupt. There's a significant distinction when an organization is formed to execute law enforcement. Any corruption that infects law enforcement will drive away the good and the talented, I don't count committing felonies with a judge's approval as a talent. The FBI was created around the methods of law enforcement you seem to be at peace with, it's not something a normal citizen of a free society would say is right or just. Psychopathic practices can sometimes look clever, but outside that perspective people see it as a sickness.
Click to expand...

Cartoon child pornography is entirely legal. Cartoon anything is legal. Fake anything is legal basically. The only reason real child pornography is illegal is because someone had to abuse a child to create that content. Along the same line of thought, I'm sure there are sickos that make snuff videos (I'm not talking about ISIS propaganda stuff here). You don't easily find those on the internet. Yet we're perfectly fine with movies depicting brutal murders, because it is fake.
 
Actually I am still amazed the guy credits corruption within the FBI as a reason they can't attract talent.
FBI Seeking Special Agent Applicants
Before you apply, make sure you meet the preliminary standards (with some exceptions):
  • Be a U.S. citizen
  • Be between 23 and 36 years of age
  • Possess a bachelor’s degree
  • Have at least three years of full-time work experience
  • Have lived in the United States or its territories for three of the last five years.
Click to expand...
Google
FBI Special Agent Salary. FBI Special Agents in training are provide with salaries consistent with GS-10 employees, who earn $43,441 per year in addition to a Quantico, VA COLA adjustment of $7,602 for the year (training is only for about 21 weeks).
Click to expand...

Once assigned to a field office, Special Agents retain their GS-10 status but also have a local Cost of Living Adjustment which is a bonus between 12.5 and 28.7 percent of base salary.
Click to expand...

Hmm, with the maximum cost of living adjustment the most an Agent is going to make starting out is just south of $56K annually. That is like $2,333 dollars in a 2 week pay period, for an employee with a degree and they want people from what fields?
Special agents bring with them a variety of experience and skills, from computer science and engineering to law and accounting. The FBI is looking for diversity of perspective to effectively achieve its mission.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the pay is OK, but it's not something anyone is going to go crazy over. And when someone says talent, they don't mean a blah blah employee. Talent is actually talent and the raw truth is, if you want real talent you have to pay for it, and $50K a year doesn't cut it. Add to that this;
Preliminary statistics released today by the FBI show that 41 law enforcement officers were felonious killed in the line of duty in 2015. This is a decrease of almost 20 percent when compared with the 51 officers killed in 2014.
Click to expand...

Sure there are people that will be attracted by the guns and the risks. But how well do they line up with the kind who have bachelors degrees etc? Within the younger age demographic, who are willing to give up their bong.
 
lcpiper said:
No I'm not. I made no inference what so ever that the only other option was to commit murder or torture. Do you have a mental disorder?

When you can read and understand coherently reply back and we'll discuss it further. Otherwise, just leave it at we disagree. Fucks sake you would be farther ahead that way then the track your running down now.

And I don't have to rethink anything.

Too bad you know. It seams your sitting so high on that seat of yours you can't actually see anything at all.

At least I give you room for your opinions, your self righteousness is showing no room for mine.




Looks like a match to me, except of course my statement was actually a question, I was asking if this is what you meant.

But, I have no desire to travel through the annals of history exploring the origins of the FBI. I am interested in today not yesteryear.

Again, I do not see anything wrong with what the FBI did in this case. It sounds like you do. There it is.

Of course the Judge that issued the warrant didn't and the one that heard and ruled on this case didn't. I suppose that means I have company.
Click to expand...
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English is your second language. There is no other excuse for an adult to have such atrocious spelling and grammar. I can barely read this message, but it looks like you didn't directly respond to my previous message. So I guess, fuck off back to school retard?
 
Tsumi said:
Cartoon child pornography is entirely legal. Cartoon anything is legal. Fake anything is legal basically. The only reason real child pornography is illegal is because someone had to abuse a child to create that content. Along the same line of thought, I'm sure there are sickos that make snuff videos (I'm not talking about ISIS propaganda stuff here). You don't easily find those on the internet. Yet we're perfectly fine with movies depicting brutal murders, because it is fake.
Click to expand...
I don't care about the legality of a moral issue. Icpiper stated clearly child pornography itself isn't terrible. I'm not letting that one go. Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant in this context.
 
Scizyr said:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English is your second language. There is no other excuse for an adult to have such atrocious spelling and grammar. I can barely read this message, but it looks like you didn't directly respond to my previous message. So I guess, fuck off back to school retard?
Click to expand...

Me so sorrrry, I forget comma ,,,, ?

I'll break down my comments for you so

You quote this statement of mine;
By lcpiper:
We could take a trip back to the days in China where they just catch a bad guy, put a bullet in the back of his head after they have tortured his accomplices out of him, send the bill for the bullet to his family. But that is not supposed to be where we are headed. So as long as we are going to uphold legal standards for prosecution to such high degree that we are shooting for 0% in the wrongly convicted bracket, we will have to live with playing the devil to catch the organized criminals particularly the bosses, but in this case, the consumers. They are trying to put a dent in the demand which by the details of this case, is substantial.
Click to expand...

And directly replied to it with this.
By Scizyr:
You have a very black and white perspective when it comes to law enforcement, only its very skewed towards black. Here you're saying the only other solution aside from allowing the FBI to commit felonies is to murder and torture, which I guess in your mind is different from a felony. Playing the devil is monstrous, I'm glad you agree with me that the FBI are monsters.
Click to expand...

I was trying to say that the US does not do things like China used to, that we are not so barbaric, and that I don't think that is where we want to go in the future. And I was also trying to get across that as long as the US wants to continue with placing the burden of proof on the accuser and not the accused, and try as much as possible not to wrongly convict innocents of crimes they have not committed, that we must push our law enforcement to gather evidence that allows for conviction without doubt of guilt. And in order to catch and convict those who work hard to hide their criminal activities we have to allow law enforcement some room to work.

That is what I am trying to say.

I don't know how you interpreted my comments the way you did.

But I am going to say it one more time. This is my opinion, I have not tried to silence or deny you your own opinion. And if you can't leave it at that then I am more than willing to chase you around and around. It's up to you.
 
Scizyr said:
I don't care about the legality of a moral issue. Icpiper stated clearly child pornography itself isn't terrible. I'm not letting that one go. Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant in this context.
Click to expand...

Morality is subjective, and you cannot expect to force your morals on someone else. Nor can you expect everyone to share your morals.

There are people that genuinely believe same sex relations are immoral. There are people that believe sodomy is immoral. Heck, there are people that believe not believing in God is immoral. Point is, morality doesn't matter on this point.

Does the act of viewing child porn harm anyone? No. Does the act of creating child porn harm anyone? Yes, it harms the child. That is the point that matters.
 
Well..... what if the child wanted to do it to get money? It's one thing when it's a kid that don't know any better, but when child is mentioned, it seems to cover 0-17.
 
We need a new Amendment that basically says "Stay the fuck out of my business, period."
 
pothb said:
Well..... what if the child wanted to do it to get money? It's one thing when it's a kid that don't know any better, but when child is mentioned, it seems to cover 0-17.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between 18 and 17 and 364 days? Or 363, 362, etc. At some point you just have to arbitrarily set a limit. It's like speed limits. There isn't a big difference between 25 and 26 mph. Or alcohol. What makes a 20 year 360 day old person different from a 21 year old? Not much is going to change in 5 days, barring some extreme event. Going down that path is a slippery slope, so a line has to be set. It's arbitrary, and age of consent varies all over the world depending on culture. But it is the best we can do, short of making everyone take a competency test.
 
DarkStar02 said:
Never thought I'd see the day lcpiper was actually making some sense.
Click to expand...

Thanx, I was starting to doubt myself?

Scizyr, I do want to apologize to you for something.

I said
Do you have a mental disorder?
Click to expand...
And that wasn't fair, I make no excuses and you didn't deserve it.

Looking back I can see how that comment has probably turned this discussion into a fight and I regret it.
 
pothb said:
One, entrapment.
Two, funny how the cops can have child porn and be fine, huh?

But, regardless, we're talking about the possibility of this type of BS because of the way the court ruled it.
Click to expand...

From what I gather, existing users accessed the website using user accounts, log files on the server already show these users had accessed the server and illegal material in the past. When these users return and again accesses illegal material they get an FBI NIT as well, and their computers are electronically searched, with a warrant in place authorizing the search.

I think the part about not needing a warrant comes from that angle, that the crime and guilt are already established and that reasonable cause already exists to justify a search without a warrant, even though they got one anyway.

If this is an accurate description of how the FBI did things I don't think you are going to get entrapment because there exists evidence on the server of past crimes. All the FBI is doing is waiting for these criminals to return so they can be identified.

Now I don't see this laid out in the article in exactly this fashion, but if I were an FBI agent on this case, this is how I would have done it.


You are correct that this discussion should be more about the effects of the ruling and less about the specifics of this case. I haven't even begun to really look at the ruling and whether the EFF's claims that the ramifications amount to unrestricted searches of all our personal computer systems without controls. My first reaction is to call BS because that is a very wild claim and I think it's just designed to stir up the public. But .... I am more than willing to take time and look into it with you guys and see if there is any basis for this claim.
 
Last edited:
I'm confident they already have access to everything of ours.
 
Tsumi said:
What is the difference between 18 and 17 and 364 days? Or 363, 362, etc. At some point you just have to arbitrarily set a limit. It's like speed limits. There isn't a big difference between 25 and 26 mph. Or alcohol. What makes a 20 year 360 day old person different from a 21 year old? Not much is going to change in 5 days, barring some extreme event. Going down that path is a slippery slope, so a line has to be set. It's arbitrary, and age of consent varies all over the world depending on culture. But it is the best we can do, short of making everyone take a competency test.
Click to expand...

Hell last I knew it even varies state to state here in the US, yet smoking and drinking do not vary. I think my state is 16 IIRC. Not something I really want to extensively search at the moment lol.

Which would mean I could sleep with her, but if I photograph it then its jail time and registered?
 
lcpiper said:
Now I don't see this laid out in the article in exactly this fashion, but if I were an FBI agent on this case, this is how I would have done it.


You are correct that this discussion should be more about the effects of the ruling and less about the specifics of this case. I haven't even begun to really look at the ruling and whether the EFF's claims that the ramifications amount to unrestricted searches of all our personal computer systems without controls. My first reaction is to call BS because that is a very wild claim and I think it's just designed to stir up the public. But .... I am more than willing to take time and look into it with you guys and see if there is any basis for this claim.
Click to expand...
I find it harder everyday to trust such people with such power, so it's probably a reactionary type of thing in my case. Maybe the fbi wasn't unreasonable in this case, hard to say. And so, when there is any sort of slippery slope, I don't give them the benefit of doubt.
Darunion said:
Hell last I knew it even varies state to state here in the US, yet smoking and drinking do not vary. I think my state is 16 IIRC. Not something I really want to extensively search at the moment lol.

Which would mean I could sleep with her, but if I photograph it then its jail time and registered?
Click to expand...

No only that, I believe, if she sent a nude photo to you, you'd still be liable for possession of child porn.
Tsumi said:
What is the difference between 18 and 17 and 364 days? Or 363, 362, etc. At some point you just have to arbitrarily set a limit. It's like speed limits. There isn't a big difference between 25 and 26 mph. Or alcohol. What makes a 20 year 360 day old person different from a 21 year old? Not much is going to change in 5 days, barring some extreme event. Going down that path is a slippery slope, so a line has to be set. It's arbitrary, and age of consent varies all over the world depending on culture. But it is the best we can do, short of making everyone take a competency test.
Click to expand...

I think a case by case basis is just better. It's harder to be sure. But people are unique enough for that. I guess you can look at it in broader aspect until you're dealing directly with it.
 
pothb said:
I find it harder everyday to trust such people with such power, so it's probably a reactionary type of thing in my case. Maybe the fbi wasn't unreasonable in this case, hard to say. And so, when there is any sort of slippery slope, I don't give them the benefit of doubt.


No only that, I believe, if she sent a nude photo to you, you'd still be liable for possession of child porn.


I think a case by case basis is just better. It's harder to be sure. But people are unique enough for that. I guess you can look at it in broader aspect until you're dealing directly with it.
Click to expand...

I agree that is best. However, that opens up a huge can of worms on its own. What tests do you use? How do you make sure it is objective and eliminate tester bias? How do you ensure it is fair? How do you keep the person from cheating the test? Moreover, how do you, as a common person, make sure that your to-be partner is competent? How do you argue you thought he/she (because let's be honest, it goes both ways) was competent enough when he/she actually isn't? It's already bad enough with teens misrepresenting their age. Diving into something as abstract as another person's mind...
 
Yea, it's not something we can easily jump in to and get "accurate" readings. I doubt the best psycologists and what not are able to do so with any real percentage of accuracy.
 
pothb said:
I find it harder everyday to trust such people with such power, so it's probably a reactionary type of thing in my case. Maybe the fbi wasn't unreasonable in this case, hard to say. And so, when there is any sort of slippery slope, I don't give them the benefit of doubt..
Click to expand...

I am pinning some hope that between the Judge that issued the NIT Warrant authorizing the activity, and the judge sitting on the case, going through the legal process with lawyers on each side, maybe it doesn't have to come down to blindly trusting the FBI.
 
actually it does protect the computer, and everything else personal,
except the courts are run by freemasons, new world order, traitors
 
Last edited:
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
The usa gov would never become tyrannical, absolutely 100.01% impossible, so get out of here with your stupid 'conspiracy theories'. Oh wait...."the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer" sounds just a little tyrannical, but, just a little!
Click to expand...
Being willfully blind does not mean others are creating conspiracy theories. People don't need to make up theories. The evidence is already there. Our privacy has been infringed upon for quite some time. The same laws need to apply to computers as other things. It should require a warrant regardless of any reasoning they can come up with.
 
evilsofa said:
Go live in North Korea, find out what a police state actually is.
Click to expand...
One country is hiding their BS while the other is open with it. Obviously this country is not utterly terrible like North Korea, but don't kid yourselves to what's going on here.
 
lcpiper said:
No, I'd rather not play games and just get this over with.

Scizyr, I admire your morals. I even admire your fortitude to stand up for them. I have no doubt that you would put your real name, yourself, on the line for your beliefs though I have no intention to ask you too or even would I desire it.

But I find your application of said morals, unrealistic. And I find where and how you assign blame problematic.

Just as a guess, I would say that you find murder a terrible crime. I won't try and figure out where murder rates on the scales of least to worst, but I'll settle for a generic "terrible".

And murder is homicide by definition. The killing of another human in it's most basic form. By US law and most western laws, homicide falls into only four categories;

Self
Accidental / Unintentional
Criminal
Justifiable

I will take a leap here to save time and say I think you agree that there are cases where homicide is justifiable.

The same is true for almost every negative act man can commit. But in this case, you don't seem to allow a category for justifiable even if it is to prevent criminal.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty wild and wacky posthumous ninja edit there. I was going to move on from this thread until I saw this.

We can't ever reach a resolution in a discussion if you keep interrupting the space-time continuum, going back and changing posts well after the fact just to save some face for posterity. If you mean what you say then stick by your words and live by them. Editing posts should only be done to correct typos, please don't abuse it the way the FBI abuses the law.

On topic, in response to the last two sentences yes there are times when certain crimes are justifiable, mainly in the direct protection of others. Homicide is justifiable when you shoot someone that has already intentionally shot someone else. I wouldn't however say it would be ok for the FBI to for example, secretly join ISIS, take over the leadership of a cell and continue beheading people for Allah in order to catch "the real monsters." This is essentially my perspective of what they've done with the child porn website. They allowed and facilitated in the beheading of infidels to catch more criminals.
 
Scizyr said:
That's a pretty wild and wacky posthumous ninja edit there. I was going to move on from this thread until I saw this.

We can't ever reach a resolution in a discussion if you keep interrupting the space-time continuum, going back and changing posts well after the fact just to save some face for posterity. If you mean what you say then stick by your words and live by them. Editing posts should only be done to correct typos, please don't abuse it the way the FBI abuses the law.

On topic, in response to the last two sentences yes there are times when certain crimes are justifiable, mainly in the direct protection of others. Homicide is justifiable when you shoot someone that has already intentionally shot someone else. I wouldn't however say it would be ok for the FBI to for example, secretly join ISIS, take over the leadership of a cell and continue beheading people for Allah in order to catch "the real monsters." This is essentially my perspective of what they've done with the child porn website. They allowed and facilitated in the beheading of infidels to catch more criminals.
Click to expand...

No, what they did with the child porn website was keep it running long enough to identify many of the worst consumers which hopefully will cut down on demand, make the enterprise a little less profitable for several years, and maybe save some children great anguish in the process. They ran it for what? one week, when it had been running for years. I do not see this as abusive, you do. I don't think I'll change your mind but I am OK with that.

I do not look at what they did as if they were trying to catch new offenders, but that they wanted to identify long-standing recurring offenders, easily quantified by their previous activity on the site as long as log files, etc, provided such evidence.

As for the "Ninja Post" accusation. I think you should go back and re-look the time stamps.

The original post was #78 at 11:03 AM my time. I edited the post last at 11:26 AM, 23 minutes later.
The very next post, #79, was after my edit at 12:06 AM. I did not go back and edit my post as a dodge or to change the course of the argument. All I was doing was adding more to my comment. I think a "Ninja post" would involve something more.

I have no need to do such things cause I am trying to let this die as well. We just have different stances on the issue and all I want to do is take some sting from my comments. Perhaps if you check, that same post is quoted elsewhere and you can see what was edited when.
 
Last edited:
Scizyr said:
On topic, in response to the last two sentences yes there are times when certain crimes are justifiable, mainly in the direct protection of others. Homicide is justifiable when you shoot someone that has already intentionally shot someone else. I wouldn't however say it would be ok for the FBI to for example, secretly join ISIS, take over the leadership of a cell and continue beheading people for Allah in order to catch "the real monsters." This is essentially my perspective of what they've done with the child porn website. They allowed and facilitated in the beheading of infidels to catch more criminals.
Click to expand...

The FBI did not create new child porn. That's where your equivalency to beheading infidels breaks down.
 
evilsofa said:
The FBI did not create new child porn. That's where your equivalency to beheading infidels breaks down.
Click to expand...
They knowingly and actively distributed child porn. This is a grievous act by itself that I equate with beheading godless heathens. Just because you and seemingly many others on this site don't find child porn to be terrible doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you.
 
Scizyr said:
They knowingly and actively distributed child porn. This is a grievous act by itself that I equate with beheading godless heathens. Just because you and seemingly many others on this site don't find child porn to be terrible doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Do you want the users of that site to be punished for their crimes, or do you want to immediately shut down the website and never find out who any of them are so they can continue to fund the operations of the other child porn websites they visit?

What you want will catch very few pedophiles. You are extremely emotional on the subject and not able to see the situation clearly enough to do something effective against it.
 
Scizyr said:
They knowingly and actively distributed child porn. This is a grievous act by itself that I equate with beheading godless heathens. Just because you and seemingly many others on this site don't find child porn to be terrible doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Distributed is such a strong word. I get this vision of a guy on the street calling "Get your kiddie porn here", "See a Shirley Temple doing the dirty with an Orangutan". But that isn't the same thing as a dark web website running illegal activities hiding to avoid detection. This is people hiding in the dark trying not to be found and the people who do find it were pretty much looking for it to start with. The FBI only found it when they were told about it from a foreign service.

There is not much worse than what people are doing to children in order to make this material. I can't tell you which is worse tho, the people consuming the product or the ones creating it. It hurts my head to try and rationalize a measure for either and would rather just lump them both up together and call for their heads. As for those who facilitate the transfer between supplier and consumer I find them almost equally evil but as these people place themselves as middlemen in the entire scheme I find that it is more than justifiable to do what the FBI has done in order to catch and hurt the ones responsible. Now I don't think the FBI should create and run a server, but taking one that is already in place and already has evidence for both customers and perhaps suppliers, and running it for one more week to catch several hundred real assholes. And you show me these guys will go to prison, that it will cut down on demand, may effect supply, might even save some kids some hurt. Yes I am good with that.
 
evilsofa said:
Do you want the users of that site to be punished for their crimes, or do you want to immediately shut down the website and never find out who any of them are so they can continue to fund the operations of the other child porn websites they visit?

What you want will catch very few pedophiles. You are extremely emotional on the subject and not able to see the situation clearly enough to do something effective against it.
Click to expand...


And on that thought, Scizyr might have good reason.

It always happens to someone else.

Like I said, maybe we should just let this one go away, it's an evil subject.
 
evilsofa said:
Do you want the members of ISIS to be punished for their crimes, or do you want to immediately shut down ISIS cells so they don't continue beheading haram infidels who insult glorious Allah?

What you want will catch very few ISIS members. You are extremely emotional on the subject and not able to see the situation clearly enough to do something effective against it.
Click to expand...
Don't presume to know my emotions. Your mom was extremely emotional when I left last night.
Ohhhhhh.



lcpiper said:
It hurts my head to try and rationalize a measure for either and would rather just lump them both up together and call for their heads.
Click to expand...
At least we can agree that more beheading of infidels needs to happen.

I believe we can leave this topic here.
 
I think my issue would be if they seize a server and shut it down and use its data to find people that have taken or contributed material that is fine. I feel if they run said server for a while and only have fake material or unrelated material masked as kiddie stuff to find people, that is fine. I take issue if they were actually distributing the kiddie stuff itself and catching people. I am not sure how far they went with it but that would be a terrible zone to be in. Lets say Bob goes to fbi run site and downloads a ton of videos, gets busted and goes to jail. But Bob distributed that to dozens of other Bobs who never got caught, in a way the fbi contributed to the demand of such material to catch a single person but supplying many.

Would be similar if an undercover cop was posed as a prostitute but didnt arrest you until after she had sex with you for money lol. Or better sold you actual drugs that you then sold to others before getting arrested.
 
evilsofa said:
Go back in time to when America Was Still Great, find out what being a slave actually is.
Click to expand...
Please name more than one other country that ended slavery while it was perceived as stilll economically vital?
 
Beheadings and infidels? Sounds like someone has lost their grip on the oars of reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top