[Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
Locked
12345
... 31
12345
... 31
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
 
|
On 11/28/2008 1:30 PM, Chris Ilias wrote: > Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) Yes. > If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) No. > > If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a > personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) Yes. > > Your comments about these issues (if any). (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a personal attack. (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending on this process. -- Irwin Please do not use my email address to make requests for help. Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Regarding the thread titled: "[Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?" On 11/28/08 2:30 PM, Chris Ilias's opinion was expressed: > Your comments about these issues (if any). Comment only: If you decide to remove "personal attacks", with a warning or not, then you'd better define "personal attacks" PRECISELY. Otherwise, you're going to get a lot of "Why was my post removed?" and "But I didn't mean it that way", or "How can I violate a rule if it's not even defined?" or . . . some such on this. If you define it, then the simple answer can be a link to the definition (which you could automate). And for the "But I didn't mean it that way" excuse, you need to put something in the definition like "intended or not" If you decide to leave the definition to "common sense", then remember that the funny thing about common sense is that it's not that common! You moderators don't want to have to enforce this thing based on a moving target or a slippery slope. -- BJ _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Irwin Greenwald-4
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800
Irwin Greenwald <[hidden email]> wrote: > (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a > personal attack. I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified" personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same. (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any valid justifications for personal attacks.) > (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack > will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending > on this process. Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal attack before any action would be taken, though we haven't discussed that explicitly. -- »Q« /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / against html e-mail X <http://asciiribbon.org/> / \ _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_ > Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that > anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first > asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any > subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See > <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>. > > > _Personal Attacks_ > The first rule of etiquette at > <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil. > Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't > have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is: > > Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) > > If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) NO NETCOP NO WARNINGS > > If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a > personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) NO NETCOP IT SHOULD NOT BE > > Your comments about these issues (if any). > > > Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups > are not removed. > > In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support, > *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*. > *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*. general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
On 11/28/2008 1:30 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_ > Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that > anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first > asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any > subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See > <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>. > > > _Personal Attacks_ > The first rule of etiquette at > <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil. > Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't > have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is: > > Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) Yes > > If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) No > > If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a > personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) Yes > > Your comments about these issues (if any). From time to time topics tend to drift and I don't really have a problem there, as long as there aren't personal innuendo or sales pitches. I will commend all for generally not responding to "those" posts. > > > Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups > are not removed. > > In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support, > *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*. > *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) Yes > If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) No > If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a > personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) Yes -- Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by »Q«
On 11/28/2008 6:05 PM, »Q« wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800 > Irwin Greenwald <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a >> personal attack. > > I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified" > personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same. > (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any > valid justifications for personal attacks.) > >> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack >> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending >> on this process. > > Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment > call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption > that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal attack > before any action would be taken, though we haven't discussed that > explicitly. > someone file a report complaining about the post? -- Irwin Please do not use my email address to make requests for help. Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Irwin Greenwald <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 11/28/2008 6:05 PM, »Q« wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800 > > Irwin Greenwald <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response > >> to a personal attack. > > > > I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified" > > personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same. > > (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any > > valid justifications for personal attacks.) > > > >> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack > >> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending > >> on this process. > > > > Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment > > call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption > > that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal > > attack before any action would be taken, though we haven't > > discussed that explicitly. > > Can I interpret that to mean that there won't be a requirement that > someone file a report complaining about the post? I didn't mean to imply that with what I wrote above, but I do not think there would be a requirement that someone complain. There are a few reasons not to require complaints, but I think Chris already mentioned the most compelling one, that many people in the groups don't know how to reach us to complain. (And I don't think people in the groups should have to worry about the cancellation policy or who implements it in order to get the benefits of it.) That said, of course if someone brought to our attention something they thought we had overlooked, we'd take a look at it then. -- »Q« Kleeneness is next to Gödelness. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:
> > Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) Yes > > If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) Yes > > If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a > personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) Yes, after a first warning. > > Your comments about these issues (if any). > > > Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups > are not removed. > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by »Q«
»Q« wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800 > Irwin Greenwald <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a >> personal attack. > > I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified" > personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same. > (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any > valid justifications for personal attacks.) > >> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack >> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending >> on this process. > > Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment > call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption > that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal attack > before any action would be taken, though we haven't discussed that > explicitly. > A personal attack should be quite obvious. Something like: "You're a stupid idiot" is a personal attack. "That is a stupid idea." is not. Casting aspersions on one's race, ethnic heritage, parentage, or even the state of one's dress, certainly qualifies. Things like 'What can you expect from a Kiwi?' are much harder to classify. Generally, I would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause discomfort, rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor. Intent is often the deciding factor between 'accident', and 'crime'. -- Ron Hunter [hidden email] _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_ > > > > Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) Abstain > > If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) Abstain > > If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a > personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) Abstain > > Your comments about these issues (if any). > > This is a very slippery slope indeed. I've been there, done that. What constitutes a 'personal attack' in the first place? For example You, Sir, are an idiot. Only an idiot would think that way. Is there a village missing it's idiot? That's plain idiotic. Idjet. Do any of the above constitute 'a personal attack'? Now, I realize those are quite mild, as far as some attacks go anyway, but you get the general idea. How about Where the EFFing did you get that from? (I don't use obscene language, you get the idea too) Or is that more obscene than an 'attack'? I note above that one who edits/controls another forum I inhabit uses a quite strict regimen, but he is doing it by himself, not shared amongst a triumpherate (as would be the case here). Do all the monitors share the same idea/context/level? I monitored (still do in fact) a group over on another news server where there were some 'problem' posters. And sometimes drawing the line between 'comment' and 'attack' was pretty darn slim. I was lucky in that I had others to talk to and discuss the issue with before doing anything rash. I would also like to mention that in the case where I was personally attacked, I had to step aside and let others 'do the dirty work' so to speak. It is quite difficult to remain third party aloof when it is your honour at stake. So what happens if someone 'attacks' on of the monitors? - Or all of them as a group? On that note, at this juncture I would like to say that I interpret the term 'Mozilla Bullies' as used here and in other support groups by a few posters, as an 'attack'. So what would be done in that case? Or is that even an 'attack'? I abstained from voting because I don't know what level you are thinking of. Answering the questions above would go far to satisfying that. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?" On 11/29/08 2:12 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed: > Generally, I would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause > discomfort, rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor. Intent > is often the deciding factor between 'accident', and 'crime'. Careful, "intent" is a slippery slope. The classic excuse would be "I didn't mean it that way". And if it was taken as a "personal attack", how is a user supposed to know the sensitivities of a particular person? And, if you want to make it hinge on "common sense", then as I said before, the funny thing about common sense is that it's not that common. -- BJ _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Moz Champion (Dan)
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?" On 11/29/08 2:36 AM, Moz Champion (Dan)'s opinion was expressed: > This is a very slippery slope indeed. I've been there, done that. > > What constitutes a 'personal attack' in the first place? Well said . . . my compliments. > You, Sir, are an idiot. > Only an idiot would think that way. > Is there a village missing it's idiot? > That's plain idiotic. > Idjet. Never argue with an idiot! They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Now is that a personal attack? If idiots grew on trees, this place would be an orchard. Is that one? And this?: There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots. -- BJ _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Blair-2
David E. Ross wrote, On 29/11/08 03:59:
> On 11/28/2008 1:30 PM, Chris Ilias wrote: >> _Background_ >> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that >> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first >> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any >> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See >> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>. >> >> >> _Personal Attacks_ >> The first rule of etiquette at >> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil. >> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't >> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is: >> >> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) > > No. If I find that someone is repeatedly offensive to me, I filter out > their messages. Currently, I have a filter for only one such person, > whose messages are marked as already read. (I also have filters against > spam and floods.) > >> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) > > Yes. Otherwise, how will someone learn to modify his or her behavior. Did you mean that such posts will be removed only if same person was warned previously for the same reason? _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 29.11.2008 10:12, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? : > »Q« wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800 >> Irwin Greenwald <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a >>> personal attack. >>> >> I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified" >> personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same. >> (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any >> valid justifications for personal attacks.) >> >> >>> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack >>> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending >>> on this process. >>> >> Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment >> call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption >> that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal attack >> before any action would be taken, though we haven't discussed that >> explicitly. >> >> > > A personal attack should be quite obvious. Something like: "You're a > stupid idiot" is a personal attack. "That is a stupid idea." is not. > Casting aspersions on one's race, ethnic heritage, parentage, or even > the state of one's dress, certainly qualifies. Things like 'What can > you expect from a Kiwi?' are much harder to classify. Generally, I > would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause > discomfort, > rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor. problem with that one, Ron.... we all know just how much humor "one of" the designated moderators can cope with! NONE ! <<snipped>> reg _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by BJ-21
On 29.11.2008 02:58, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused BJ to generate
the following:? : > Regarding the thread titled: "[Poll]Should posts containing personal > attacks be removed?" > > On 11/28/08 2:30 PM, Chris Ilias's opinion was expressed: > > >> Your comments about these issues (if any). >> > > Comment only: If you decide to remove "personal attacks", with a > warning or not, then you'd better define "personal attacks" PRECISELY. > Otherwise, you're going to get a lot of "Why was my post removed?" and > "But I didn't mean it that way", or "How can I violate a rule if it's > not even defined?" or . . . some such on this. > In *my opinion* - a personal attack _on me_ is something that *I* want to decide. If *I* am not offended by an attack upon *my person* - but someone else is.... why are they reading posts addressed to me?? reg > <<snipped>> > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by Moz Champion (Dan)
Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
> Chris Ilias wrote: >> _Background_ >> >> >> >> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) > > > Abstain > >> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) > > Abstain > >> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a >> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) > > Abstain > >> Your comments about these issues (if any). >> >> > > This is a very slippery slope indeed. I've been there, done that. > > What constitutes a 'personal attack' in the first place? > > For example > > You, Sir, are an idiot. > Only an idiot would think that way. > Is there a village missing it's idiot? > That's plain idiotic. > Idjet. > > > Do any of the above constitute 'a personal attack'? > > Now, I realize those are quite mild, as far as some attacks go anyway, > but you get the general idea. > > How about > > Where the EFFing did you get that from? (I don't use obscene language, > you get the idea too) > Or is that more obscene than an 'attack'? > > I note above that one who edits/controls another forum I inhabit uses a > quite strict regimen, but he is doing it by himself, not shared amongst > a triumpherate (as would be the case here). Do all the monitors share > the same idea/context/level? > > I monitored (still do in fact) a group over on another news server where > there were some 'problem' posters. And sometimes drawing the line > between 'comment' and 'attack' was pretty darn slim. I was lucky in that > I had others to talk to and discuss the issue with before doing anything > rash. > > I would also like to mention that in the case where I was personally > attacked, I had to step aside and let others 'do the dirty work' so to > speak. It is quite difficult to remain third party aloof when it is > your honour at stake. So what happens if someone 'attacks' on of the > monitors? - Or all of them as a group? > > On that note, at this juncture I would like to say that I interpret the > term 'Mozilla Bullies' as used here and in other support groups by a few > posters, as an 'attack'. > So what would be done in that case? Or is that even an 'attack'? > > I abstained from voting because I don't know what level you are thinking > of. Answering the questions above would go far to satisfying that. Backhanded comments, and similar don't quite reach the level of a personal attack, unless they are clearly meant to be such. It is similar to defining 'obscene'. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. At some point, we just have to trust the moderators to make these choices. Just as I disagree with them on some of my posts that they deem 'off topic', some will disagree with what constitutes a personal attack. As for language, if you can't use it on TV, in the US, then it shouldn't be used here. Surely everyone here is able to communicate adequately without resort to such words, IF they want to. -- Ron Hunter [hidden email] _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
On 28.11.2008 15:30, Chris Ilias wrote:
--- Original Message --- > _Background_ > Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that > anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first > asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any > subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See > <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>. > > > _Personal Attacks_ > The first rule of etiquette at > <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil. > Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't > have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is: > > Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No ) > > If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No ) > > If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a > personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No ) > > Your comments about these issues (if any). > > > Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups > are not removed. > > In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support, > *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*. > *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*. Final comment based on all the replies: My feeling NOW is to abandon the thought of removing personal attacks, the reason being that there are just too many definitions as to the severity and like Dan said, just what IS a personal attack. My suggestion: In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to over-police the groups. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape / Flock Champion Netscape - Firefox - Flock - Thunderbird Support UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by BJ-21
BJ wrote:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal > attacks be removed?" > > On 11/29/08 2:36 AM, Moz Champion (Dan)'s opinion was expressed: > > >> This is a very slippery slope indeed. I've been there, done that. >> >> What constitutes a 'personal attack' in the first place? > > Well said . . . my compliments. > >> You, Sir, are an idiot. >> Only an idiot would think that way. >> Is there a village missing it's idiot? >> That's plain idiotic. >> Idjet. > > Never argue with an idiot! They will bring you down to their level and > beat you with experience. > > Now is that a personal attack? > > If idiots grew on trees, this place would be an orchard. > > Is that one? > > And this?: > > There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots. > the attack, or something of that specific nature, with an obvious intent to offend, or denigrate. -- Ron Hunter [hidden email] _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?
|
|
In reply to this post by BJ-21
BJ wrote:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal > attacks be removed?" > > On 11/29/08 2:12 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed: > >> Generally, I would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause >> discomfort, rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor. Intent >> is often the deciding factor between 'accident', and 'crime'. > > Careful, "intent" is a slippery slope. The classic excuse would be "I > didn't mean it that way". And if it was taken as a "personal attack", > how is a user supposed to know the sensitivities of a particular person? > > And, if you want to make it hinge on "common sense", then as I said > before, the funny thing about common sense is that it's not that common. > steering on your car breaks, and you run onto the sidewalk, and hit a pedestrian, is that the same as seeing said pedestrian, and steering into him, intentionally? One is a terrible accident, the other is attempted murder. Did you know that you can be convicted of attempted murder of a person, even if that person happened to be dead already? All based on intent, and action. -- Ron Hunter [hidden email] _______________________________________________ general mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
«
Return to Mozilla - General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |