Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Owwww.
Really, I mean, many idiots assume lack of belief in morality = sociopath.
Fuckin stupid conclusion, but, hey whatever.

Not at all. You're cordially invited to look up the definition of sociopath:

M-W Dictionary Wrote:noun, Psychiatry.

1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
I wouldn't say that I'm antisocial, (a little shy perhaps). I have not been convicted of any crime, I don't believe in morality (so I guess that's one tick for you there), I'm not quite sure what you mean by social conscience.

Anyway, the label that suits me better is moral nihilist rather than psychopathic, these aren't equivalent.

(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I mean really, If you want to know if I have empathy then ask, don't assume from a philosophical standpoint.
It's like saying that atheists can't be good without a belief in god.

lol, it isn't a philosophical standpoint that is my basis anyway. It's linguistic and definitional. By your lights, industrial disasters which have killed -- killed -- thousands are acceptable, because, hey, that's business.
OK, so where have I said " industrial disasters which have killed -- killed -- thousands are acceptable, because, hey, that's business"?


(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Before you compose your reply, think about where, in all this thread, you've advocated for any community responsibility held by business; think about where you've advocated for businesses having anything other than profit as a motive.

Yeah, I didn't find it, either. Climb down from the cross there, and review your own outlook.
I certainly aren't claiming any moral high ground (I have no morals remember) so I' not sure what you are talking about with the "Climb down from the cross " jibe.

Regarding my lack of comments regarding community responsibility, well, I'm focussed on economics here. Start another thread if you want to talk about community responsibility held by business. Don't assume my silence means that I think businesses can do whatever they like.

(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You are saying that I can't have empathy if I don't have a belief in moral rights, wrongs and obligations. Where is the logic in that thinking?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your lack of belief in morality leads me to believe you have no empathy.
Oh, how I love it when people form beliefs. It means they close their minds to any alternative explanations.

(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Anyone who would defend the ability to turn a profit over the ability to live a life free of domineering business
Have I made this argument or claim? Or perhaps you have been reading between the lines.

(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  you clearly aren't able to understand the emotions others might have.
Thank you Dr Phill, please step in line behind Dr Doolittle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 03:55 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  But to a rigid mind -- as EK pointed out earlier, he's deeply averse to grey -- to a rigid mind, such complexities are not just anathem√¶, but existential crises.
Painting things as right vs wrong is black and white thinking. I don't do that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 10:00 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 03:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Then we disagree on this. Seems your definition of harm is different to mine. I certainly know that your understanding of the purpose for government and law differs from mine. You have a strong moral conviction, I have none at all.
See, I see this as you advocating complete laissez-faire "they can do what the fuck they like" business practices.
Hmm, I've had a bit more think about this one. You are assuming that I am all for exploiting children because my response was to Chas' post of
Quote:A corporation that takes its business off-shore so that it can employ children with no regard for safety and pay them a pittance is causing harm.
While it does not appear to be illegal, it should be.

I guess I have a couple of points if I were to address Chas's post fully.
Firstly to note Chas immediately stated
Quote:Please don't counter that with some version of "they're bringing much needed jobs/wages to that place" because the cost of doing that, in human terms, is too high.

So, to some degree he already knew what the obvious comeback was. But he was clearly showing that he wasn't open to discussion on this. So I didn't bother discussing it with him.

For your sake Morondog I'll reply (of course those with a concrete morality which is something they take pride in, almost a feature of their own goodness, they will get all angry at my response here, but hey, whatever).

1. If this is happening in other countries, then it is their affairs, not ours.
2. Other countries are in completely different situations than what we see as norm or acceptable. I've been to third world countries, I've seen (to some degree) for myself how poor some countries are.
As far as I understand it, no-one is forcing kids or people to work in these places, these people are doing it because they themselves deem this as a worth while opportunity. So, it might not be perfect but it is better than the alternative for them.
3. It doesn't make sense to assume all offshore work is in sweatshop conditions. In many countries the wages are simply much lower and the cost of living is much lower. You really cannot compare their situation to yours.

Anyways, I don't come to the conclusions that Chas does regarding the cost being too high. It is all very well living in comfortable conditions within a developed nation and refusing to buy certain products because you believe the manufacturing defies your own moral standards, but the net affect is that if you don't buy the goods then you are putting these people out of a job. What happens to them then? IDK? Do they go on to starve without this business to supply them with a job and income? IDK?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 10:13 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 10:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  See, I see this as you advocating complete laissez-faire "they can do what the fuck they like" business practices.
Hmm, I've had a bit more think about this one. You are assuming that I am all for exploiting children because my response was to Chas' post of
Quote:A corporation that takes its business off-shore so that it can employ children with no regard for safety and pay them a pittance is causing harm.
While it does not appear to be illegal, it should be.

I guess I have a couple of points if I were to address Chas's post fully.
Firstly to note Chas immediately stated
Quote:Please don't counter that with some version of "they're bringing much needed jobs/wages to that place" because the cost of doing that, in human terms, is too high.

So, to some degree he already knew what the obvious comeback was. But he was clearly showing that he wasn't open to discussion on this. So I didn't bother discussing it with him.

You obviously didn't see how the discussion could be anything other than that.
For instance, they could provide jobs without exploiting children. But you can't seem to get beyond your script.

Quote:For your sake Morondog I'll reply (of course those with a concrete morality which is something they take pride in, almost a feature of their own goodness, they will get all angry at my response here, but hey, whatever).

1. If this is happening in other countries, then it is their affairs, not ours.
2. Other countries are in completely different situations than what we see as norm or acceptable. I've been to third world countries, I've seen (to some degree) for myself how poor some countries are.
As far as I understand it, no-one is forcing kids or people to work in these places, these people are doing it because they themselves deem this as a worth while opportunity. So, it might not be perfect but it is better than the alternative for them.
3. It doesn't make sense to assume all offshore work is in sweatshop conditions. In many countries the wages are simply much lower and the cost of living is much lower. You really cannot compare their situation to yours.

Anyways, I don't come to the conclusions that Chas does regarding the cost being too high.

And that is why many conclude that you lack empathy and compassion.
And why I conclude that don't think beyond a narrow range of options.

Quote:It is all very well living in comfortable conditions within a developed nation and refusing to buy certain products because you believe the manufacturing defies your own moral standards, but the net affect is that if you don't buy the goods then you are putting these people out of a job. What happens to them then? IDK? Do they go on to starve without this business to supply them with a job and income? IDK?

There is no problem if a company does not do harm while doing business.
But you can't seem to see that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-10-2016, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2016 01:01 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I wouldn't say that I'm antisocial, (a little shy perhaps).

Who said you were? Why are you casting red herrings?

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have not been convicted of any crime, I don't believe in morality (so I guess that's one tick for you there), I'm not quite sure what you mean by social conscience.

Funny how you ignored the point I emphasized so's you could lay your own spin down.

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Anyway, the label that suits me better is moral nihilist rather than psychopathic, these aren't equivalent.

Your opinion of yourself isn't my business. I will form my judgements on my own, thankyouverymuch. By the way, I didn't call you a psychopath, I said you were sociopathic. Perhaps you should read a little about the differences? They are not interchangeable terms.

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, so where have I said " industrial disasters which have killed -- killed -- thousands are acceptable, because, hey, that's business"?

You could perhaps link to your post where you responded to both EK, myself, and others about the Bhopal disaster? You may have forgotten that exchange; I haven't.

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I certainly aren't claiming any moral high ground (I have no morals remember)

Didn't say you were --

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  -- so I'm not sure what you are talking about with the "Climb down from the cross " jibe.

From this line:
(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I mean really, If you want to know if I have empathy then ask, don't assume from a philosophical standpoint.

You want to pretend to be victimized by the accusation of sociopathy, when in fact you've demonstrated that trait throughout this thread.

I don't need to ask if you have empathy or not. Its absence speaks through every word you type, and you clearly are unaware of it.

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Regarding my lack of comments regarding community responsibility, well, I'm focussed on economics here. Start another thread if you want to talk about community responsibility held by business. Don't assume my silence means that I think businesses can do whatever they like.

Firstly, I'll talk about what I like where I like, and unless you're a moderator, you can piss off telling me what to do.

Secondly, your silence says a lot about you, a lot more than you think. Every time you dodge a question is noted. You don't think the topic of community responisibility merits a reply?

Gosh, isn't there a word used to describe this mindset? ... right on the tip of my tongue ...

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Anyone who would defend the ability to turn a profit over the ability to live a life free of domineering business
Have I made this argument or claim? Or perhaps you have been reading between the lines.

I'm pretty sure you've asserted that the only business of business is turning a profit. Furthermore, I'm sure that you've not only asserted that businesses have not moral interests, but that you yourself don't believe morals exist at all.

(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  you clearly aren't able to understand the emotions others might have.
Thank you Dr Phill, please step in line behind Dr Doolittle.

Ooh, an attempt at wit. I'm almost impressed!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
12-10-2016, 11:43 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 11:50 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, what is absurd is your seeming inability to grasp the concept that amoral constructs (like businesses and corporations) have motivations that can and do drive them to cause needless harm in the name of profit.
I'm not particularly interested in your ideas about "needless harm in the name of profit.
What I am interested in is how taking money from businesses (driving up costs) can result in more jobs rather than less.

Too bad you're utterly unable to think outside your own box, or else you'd have already found multiple answers to this.


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Since they cannot be trusted to act morally on their own,
Why on earth would you trust a business to act morally? Whose moral beliefs are you trusting them to act in accordance with? Yours? LOL.

I don't trust them you credulous fuck, and that why we have laws and regulations to attempt to curb their worst impulses. It's the subversion of those necessary regulations and laws that I have a real issues with, as it's a direct contributing factor to catastrophes like the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Facepalm


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  They are there to make a profit. You seem to have a strange expectation of them if you think it is valid criticism to point out that you can't trust them to act according to your own moral beliefs.

In reality, they are there to make a profit, not there to make YOU happy.

Once again, we already use laws to enforce morality. But apparently you don't have a problem with them subverting the rule of law and the public good, so long as they're fulfilling their god-given directive of making a profit?


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  and their motivations can very easily cause their actions to turn evil, that is a huge problem that needs to be accounted for.
There really is no such thing as evil, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Perhaps you could go out and hire yourself some exorcists or something.

You are a sociopath. Congrats?


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It is an integral part of the discussion. We're not going 'off track' by including it, rather you are purposely attempting to kneecap the discussion by fighting its inclusion at every turn.
How does your ideas of evil businesses impact job creation?
How is it relevant to the number of available jobs?

I could repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but I have little desire to argue ethics with an avowed sociopath. One might as well argue color theory with a mole.


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Businesses don't hire people because they can. They hire the people that they need to get the work at hand done.
I can agree with that. They hire people because the business case stacks up. Because if revenue is a sufficient level above costs and there are no cheaper (more cost effective alternatives) and if this is a priority (i.e. core to the business) then it makes sense to hire people.
If the cost of wages goes up however, then they may cut back on hiring staff, they might scale down their business, or they might look to offshore certain functions or automate it e.g. Customer Care and call centres or IT development, or HR functions or accounting and finance functions, or perhaps they might also look to shift manufacturing offshore.

Right, businesses hire whenever they have more work that needs to be done than their current labor force can handle. Of course there are other options for certain industries, like automation; but while that adoption removes some jobs (manufacture) it also creates others (engineering, software, design, etc.). The point being that demand drives businesses, they cannot grow without it; and everyone kneecapping their laborers with low wages means that there is less demand to go around. While I don't expect an individual business to be that far looking, one would expect that a government acting in the best interest of it's people would; and indeed the US federal government did until the mid 70's.


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So how do you stimulate a business to hire more people? Well, they need to have more work to do. How do you do that? Well, by increasing demand for their products and services. What creates demand for those products and services? Consumers with enough extra income to purchase them.
Advertising, Brand preference, following or leading market trends etc will increase demand, also lowing the price (by lowering costs) will also increase demand.

That doesn't create demand, it merely shifts it. That's a company fighting for a larger piece of the same pie, it's not actually helping to make the pie larger. Increasing the amount of disposable income the labor force has to spend, to facilitate their ability to be consumers, is what makes the pie larger.


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It makes no sense to say, well if they give money away to the poor then they will get that back + more in increased sales. If it worked that way, they would already be doing it. Just like they put money into advertising and building brand preference and into advancing their products based on market trends.

If increasing wages of their staff meant that they would make more profit, they would do it, you wouldn't need to legislate a minimum wage.

They don't, because they (much like you) are incredibly short sighted and self serving. Doing this unilaterally as a single business puts you at an economic disadvantage, and it has an immediate effect on your bottom line in the short term. However if everyone has to pay their workers more, then that eliminates the competitive advantage of paying them less. Now everyone across the board is putting more money back into the economy, in the form of better wages, meaning that labor force now has more to spend and create demand; thus enlarging the overall pie for everyone. I don't expect businesses to do what's best for the citizens and the economy as a whole, I expect the government to do that with their economic policies.


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's a positive feedback loop.
Well, it seems that business owners don't agree with you there.
Unless of course, they are evil and hence they are colluding to make wages really low despite the "fact" that this lowers their own profits. Evil people, obviously go out of their way to "harm" people, especially the poor, even if it means less profit and wealth for themselves. They do it for kicks so that they can verbalise their evil laugh which they have put a lot of time in perfecting.
Mwah ha harrrrr!

Stop being an obtuse cunt.

Don't forget that slavery was the cheapest labor at one time in the United States. We kind of had a Civil War over it, because enough people took umbrage to the economic exploitation of human beings.

But I guess slavery wasn't evil, so long as the plantation owners were incorporated? Dodgy


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If more people in the economy have more money to spend on goods and services, that increases demand within the economy.
Would be great if everyone had money that they can spend on goods and services, but where does the money come from? There isn't any magical cash cow. You need to create value, businesses do this.

Remember my Apple example? Them skimped on paying 16 billion Euros in taxes, but that was nothing to their 223 billion Euro cash reserves. What value is Apple making by just sitting atop that 223 billion Euro reserve, like a lethargic dragon atop a pile of gold? Now if Apple, and everyone else, had to use a bit of that reserve to pay their workers more? Now a fraction of that reserve is back in the economy and doing work, being used to buy goods and services. The money currently being hoarded does no good except for a businesses stock price and those who profit off of the stock market. When we cater to their desires, that's when you get shit like the Great Depression and the Great Recession; which hit much harder those at the lower end of the economic rung rather than the people at the top who created the problem to begin with. That's hardly what I'd consider fair, let alone sound fiscal policy.


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The increased demand drives the expansion of businesses, and that is what causes them to hire more people. It requires enough foresight into the long game to realize that everyone in a consumer driven economy is better off with a strong consumer base.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. This issue is where does the money come from?
Take it from the rich, take it from the businesses isn't the answer. You need to create value to produce money. Take and give it away is a fool's dream.

It's a matter of balance, because things are currently out of whack. Businesses can still thrive and make profit, even if they had to pay more in taxes and to their workers. As evidence by the massive cash reserves being held, otherwise being unused and dead to the economy, by the largest international corporations.

"Such hoarding hurts the economy -- when companies spend, it usually helps generate growth."


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Emotions do not exclude reason. Facepalm
That's true, but they also obscure the point that you are trying to make. Seems your motivations are other than calculated logic, so my skeptical self becomes more active.

Your sociopath skeptical self can fucking shove it. You don't get to play the 'skeptic' card when you've already disavowed ethics.


(12-10-2016 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, then you seem to be terribly under qualified to talk about the subject; much like someone blind to color having a discussion about interior design or paint.
Yes, much like trying to discuss the colour of god's eyes with an atheist or trying to discuss with many people the size and colour of fairy wings.

Except that corporate actions and their repercussions are demonstrable, unlike the hypothetical eye of god. Nice deflection dumbass, but you failed miserably.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-10-2016, 12:10 AM
RE: Do or Die
Undecided Tone of the thread is going downhill. I think we're talking past each other. Problem is the longer it goes on the more everyone's like "huh, but I never said that" and the more we end up looking extreme to the other side of the debate.

Stevil, there are a few posts of mine in here which I think address some of your economic points but that I haven't seen a reply to - you probably missed them. I don't have the time right now but I'll dig out the relevant points later on.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
13-10-2016, 12:13 AM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I wouldn't say that I'm antisocial, (a little shy perhaps).

Who said you were? Why are you casting red herrings?
What do you mean by red herrings, You provided a definition that included the term antisocial, so I am addressing that.

(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have not been convicted of any crime, I don't believe in morality (so I guess that's one tick for you there), I'm not quite sure what you mean by social conscience.

Funny how you ignored the point I emphasized so's you could lay your own spin down.
Your definition included antisocial, conviction, morality and social conscience. I addressed each one, What is it that you accuse me of ignoring?

(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You want to pretend to be victimized by the accusation of sociopathy
I am not pretending to be victimised, where do you come up with this stuff?


(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I don't need to ask if you have empathy or not. Its absence speaks through every word you type, and you clearly are unaware of it.
Are you retarded or something?

(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Regarding my lack of comments regarding community responsibility, well, I'm focussed on economics here. Start another thread if you want to talk about community responsibility held by business. Don't assume my silence means that I think businesses can do whatever they like.

Firstly, I'll talk about what I like where I like, and unless you're a moderator, you can piss off telling me what to do.
Sure, talk about whatever you want, but you can't force me to respond to things that I find to be irrelevant.

(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Secondly, your silence says a lot about you, a lot more than you think.
I think you have your head up your arse.

(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Every time you dodge a question is noted. You don't think the topic of community responisibility merits a reply?
Not if we are discussing the creation of jobs. Perhaps you want to talk about community responsibility here, but I have no interest. Talk about this topic with someone else would you. My silence means nothing more than I would rather talk about economics.


(12-10-2016 11:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Gosh, isn't there a word used to describe this mindset? ... right on the tip of my tongue ...
No not a word, those are your saggy balls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 12:16 AM
RE: Do or Die
(13-10-2016 12:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  Undecided Tone of the thread is going downhill. I think we're talking past each other. Problem is the longer it goes on the more everyone's like "huh, but I never said that" and the more we end up looking extreme to the other side of the debate.

Stevil, there are a few posts of mine in here which I think address some of your economic points but that I haven't seen a reply to - you probably missed them. I don't have the time right now but I'll dig out the relevant points later on.

I might have missed them, I'll take a look back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 12:24 AM
RE: Do or Die
(13-10-2016 12:16 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-10-2016 12:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  Undecided Tone of the thread is going downhill. I think we're talking past each other. Problem is the longer it goes on the more everyone's like "huh, but I never said that" and the more we end up looking extreme to the other side of the debate.

Stevil, there are a few posts of mine in here which I think address some of your economic points but that I haven't seen a reply to - you probably missed them. I don't have the time right now but I'll dig out the relevant points later on.

I might have missed them, I'll take a look back.

Don't worry, I'll find them. There are just a few specific ones. Reading all of them will be a pain and I've got the ones I want to go over in mind.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: