alspals's Profile

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl
Alpsals
I have stopped quoting because I tend to find too many nested quotes irritating and hard to read. The CDA in the US is not that different from existing obscene publications legislation in the UK. It s essentially a prohibition on the publication of material. This is easy to circumvent in practice by moving the hosting "offshore".
The UK proposals are unique as piercedJon remarked, that they essentially criminalise the viewing of material. The offence becomes one of "looking" at something that is deemed unacceptable (since in practice images are stored on harddrives involuntarily due to the way in which browser software and windows operating systems work). Only in more repressive regimes such as China has there been similar attempts to criminalise the viewing of material other than child pornography.
Once essential freedom is eroded in this way, where does it end? Those willing to give up the freedom they enjoy for a greater good might consider the amount of freedom they might ultimately be surrendering.

..I'm not arguing for a ban..only sensible debate.

View Post

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl

Bucksfuncpl..I supported your original post and I am in not defending these proposals per se. However I dont think your (or my) civil liberties are more important than the 'spurious protection of children', I for one would not want my children having free access to violent sexual images and the way the law stands now, that is the case. Issues like these need sensible discussion in an open forum and the freedom of the individual considered against the protection of minors. Incidentally, I see this as the only valid reason for such legislation

Alspals
I respect your opinion but I fundamentally disagree. The responsibility to protect children from unsavoury aspects of life lies primarily with the parents and not the legal system. These proposals will do nothing to restrict the availability of this material in the UK (except from a limited number of UK based sites). Thus I fail to see how it could possibly be seen as primarily a piece of child protection legislation. Rather it will criminalise those who "enjoy" this material and/or keep this material on their pc's (presumably parents would be more sensible than to retain such material on their family PC).
This is pioneering legislation in the "free" world. No other major democratic country has attempted to impose such restrictions on internet use and viewing. The idea that this is being done for child protection purposes is I believe a fallacy and to say that protection of minors is always a fundamentally better option than the protection of adult liberties helps to lubricate a very slippery slope indeed.
You do indeed have a right to your opinion, and it may well be the majority opinion, I just believe you are totally wrong albeit for sincere and understandable reasons.
...Bucks...I am not supporting or decrying any proposals..I just said that the consultation paper opens up legitimate debate.
The arrival and advances in the internet means that technology moves faster than our thought processes do. Five years ago my 14yo had limited internet access because it was a dial up connection and I was always policing his activity mainly because it was costsing me money! Now kids can get in from school, sit at a pc and surf to their hearts content on a broadband enabled machine in their bedrooms. I agree with what you say about child protection being an issue for the parents (I said the same in an earlier post on this thread), but it isthe state's responsibility to protect the children of irresponsible parents.
Who's to say what effect violent sexual images have on minors? It may have no negative effect at all, or no more so than any type of violent image, but it should still be open to discussion and debate. Hope that clarifies my position. biggrin

Ps..you also mention that no other democracy has sought to legislate on this issue....this link will make your eyes water

View Post

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl
My understanding is that the proposals are a response to a reasonably high profile case where some pervert actually killed a girl and as part of his defence he trotted out the usual sad old chestnut about how none of it was his fault he had been corrupted by evil images and footage from the internet/films/tv/conjured up by god (delete as appropriate). I find it quite extraordinary that in the years of trying there has been no substantiated and conclusive evidence to suggest that violence on TV leads to violence in society, let alone any evidence to suggest that viiolent pornography increases the incidence of violent sexual behaviour. There is a known connection between tobacco smoking and harm to health of smokers and those around them (including children) yet is smoking banned? Am I the only person who finds it quite extraordinary that a government can conceive of restricting peoples liberty like this WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WILL BE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
As an adult without (as yet) children, I vehemently oppose my civil liberties being trampled on the somewhat spurious grounds of "protecting children".

Bucksfuncpl..I supported your original post and I am in not defending these proposals per se. However I dont think your (or my) civil liberties are more important than the 'spurious protection of children', I for one would not want my children having free access to violent sexual images and the way the law stands now, that is the case. Issues like these need sensible discussion in an open forum and the freedom of the individual considered against the protection of minors. Incidentally, I see this as the only valid reason for such legislation smile

View Post

13 Sep 2005

Quote by Kniphofia
Well said, Bucksfun.
This has bugger-all to do with protecting vulnerable people, and everything to do with dried-up right-on political wimmin who find all pornography demeaning. Backed up of course by the usual press sensationalists: "Does YOUR child have a perve in her puter?"
And all the time, of course, doing bugger-all to actually "protect" anyone.
But this is the sort of government we've got. More like the Soviet Union every day.

..I know some very nice, sexually liberated 'dried up, right on political wimmin'! redface

Let's get serious now....I firmly believe that consenting adults should be left to do what they want to do, without state interference, the proposals about violent sexual images and their possession are only being discussed following a consultation document prepared by the Scottish Executive, following concern amongst other things about the free access to the Internet and as such violent sexual images, by children.
This is a real minefield-freedom of information/speech and self determination versus the protection of minors from viewing extreme images.
When we were growing up (us post 40 oldies), we only had the opportunity of a quick peek at our parents summer edition of Health & Efficiency (I still go goose-pimpledly thinking about all those naked ping-pong playing ladies!). Times have changed and whilst all responsible parents ensure that they monitor their kids internet acitivity, there are plenty who don't and need protection..crikey, reading that back it sounds like I'm for the new proposals...see how easy it is to sympathise with the banning perspective??

View Post

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl
Heres a question tho, if a video is found and the person it tied up and gagged how do you know they are willing and are not being abused?
Plus i have always wondered how far some people will take it, ok i know that in the DBSM scene most people are willing both ways but some people will take it a step further in order to feel the power it gives them, so as police where do u draw the line? Plus i have seen some vids where the people are having some right nasty things done to them, i saw one once where a woman was having big hat pins thro her boobs and a guy having his nuts nailed to a table...come on i'm sorry but these people need protecting from themselves

Hmm I think the case that blue referred to above was a gay guy BDSM group some members of whom got off on (amongst other things) having their scrotums nailed to planks of wood. Ultimately I believe that the law really has no place creating victimless crimes and that it is not the role of government to force morality upon the general populace. I was also under the impression that the EU Court of Human Rights ultimately reached the same decision in this case (but I might be mistaken here).
I suspect that many contributors to this forum will however have their own views of what constitutes disgusting and disgraceful behaviour which "must be stopped!", all that differs between individuals will be where the "line" is actually drawn. The reality in banning any material should be as follows IMHO :-
Is there compelling evidence that watching any material increases the rate of assault or other crimes directly related to the material?
If the answer to this question is no, then government of any persuasion has no right to restrict individual freedom. The really oppressive part of this and other similar legislation though is that it is an offence to simulate something whcih could be abusive (e.g. simulated scenes, which are a common fantasy for males and females alike, according to research), are just as criminal as filming an actual assault. This is crazy in my opinion and designed only to simplify enforcement as far as I can see. If we take this approach to its logical conclusion there would be very few films availabe for viewing in the UK since any featuring (i.e. simulating) any crime from robbery to physical assault (i.e fight scenes, punching etc) would be banned.
Governments of all persuasions have been remarkably swift to "take action" on issues affecting individual liberties in the sexual arena, because they know only too well that very few will publicly oppose them. It might be a start if we could all support the rights of anyone to view anything not actually proven to cause direct harm to the wider populace.
The idea that people need "protecting from themselves" is exactly the sort of nonsense the so called "moral majority" use to justify any restriction of individual freedom for the "greater good". Again take this to it's logical conclusion and we are all seriously in danger of being corrupted by our membership of this very forum. Would the last person to leave then please turn out the lights :P
Adults in a civilised society deserve the right to be treated as adults and to make decisions on an adult basis even if that has potentially harmful consequences for them. Or is parachute jumping, deep sea diving, rock climbing etc. also to be banned to protect the participants "from themselves".
For what its worth I find some of the practices to be included in this new legislation both offensive and repugnant, but I truly believe in freedom of expression and the right for individuals to express themselves and engage in practices I find offensive, because the idea of a nanny state controlling aspects of its citizens lives that is absolutely none of its business, is even more offensive.
what they said :thumbup:

View Post

13 Sep 2005

Quote by SXBOY
poliltitians and do good ers
there are too many missionary position ,,once a month prudes out there
get a life ,,get in touch with your sexuality and needs and give it a go
then maybe you will understand others needs

..are your comments directed at anyone in particular Sxboy? Telling people what they should be doing is just as bad as telling them what they shouldn't :shock:

View Post

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bluexxx
What new law are we talking about exactly anyway? Does anyone have a link?
Yeah, yeah, google is my friend

..have a look here Blue:

View Post

13 Sep 2005

Quote by SXBOY
sticks and stones may break your bones
but
whips and chains exite me
the law is a complete and total arse
if your all freely consenting adults and your doing what you do in the privacy of your own home or members club
it should be NO body elses business but your own

I've never understood the excitement of beating someone up or being beaten up for sexual pleasure, but I hv to agree with you Sxboy, what consenting adults do behind closed doors should be their own business, imho.
This is one of those strange laws (like many indecency laws), where someone raises an objection and the state feels it has to respond positively to it or be seen as condoning it.
It has to be said that in years gone by, morality was moderated by the Church, which motivated us to behave in a certain way by mortal fear. Rightly or wrongly, this influence has declined and the state has taken it upon itself to be the arbiter of general morality and permissiveness...they should be careful though, too many ministers have been caught with their pants (& panties) down and eating forbidden fruit (usually satsumas)!

View Post

11 Sep 2005

Quote by MikeNorth
Ah, good to see Alspals turn up eventually on this thread with his usual good sense. When I posted on page 2 I was hoping to see a contribution. Excellent! :thumbup:
The non sandal-wearing, non muesli-eating, non limp-wristed, non communist,
Mike.

gee thanks Mike...now let's all get back to higher brow pursuits like porridge knitting (oh and shagging other blokes wives and letting them do the same to ours!!) rotflmao

View Post

11 Sep 2005

Quote by westerross
I'm going to church in a bit to beg for forgiveness

Put in a good word for me will you? redface

Ta!

..I certainly will ES...but you do know it's the Church of Pagan Mind? rotflmao

That'll suit ES better I guess! Will it be along the lines of:
"Please O patron of licentiousness heap favour on enthuisiastic person of loose behaviour" (I think that's reasonably PC - go on someone pick it apart now!)
:laughabove:

View Post

11 Sep 2005

Quote by EagerSlut
I'm going to church in a bit to beg for forgiveness

Put in a good word for me will you? redface

Ta!

..I certainly will ES...but you do know it's the Church of Pagan Mind? rotflmao

View Post

11 Sep 2005

Quote by McCloggie
I know I am going to open a debate up here, BUT I have to answer Aspals.
Why do you complain about Enid Blyton books? They may or may not have been standards in childrens literature but they are now historical - the main arguement against them is that they reflected middle class life in Britain in the 1950s/1960s and the same can be said even for JK Rowling as all her characters are middle Blyton wrote her books (which are all about Britain and in particular England) we did not have a multi racial community so she was representing what was then a British point of view.
Little Black Sambo as a kids' storey is a reflection of British life in India but the book (as far as I can remember) never mentions a white kid and as such is a non racial storey about an Indian boy and a tiger.
Now I do see that the book showed a somewhat paternalistic view and I am of course sorry if anyone has suffered from remarks emanating from ignorant people reading the book and making comments.
However, as people who are British (no matter which football/cricket/rugby team me may support) we should recognise and accept what is part of our history (sorry personstory)
because by trying to hide or ban or rewrite these things I believe we are gong down a dangerous road.
If people - no matter who they are or where they are from - want to be British (or indeed Dutch/French or any other european nationality) then should they not accept that country's values?
We all live in the 21st century and those people that have respecting others views are of course right. The more the do-gooding liberals (note with a small "l") try and enforce change before allowing to happen naturally the more problems we will have. Refer to my earlier post about the NF councillor.
McC

..I have no problem with this literature forming part of the history of British culture McCloggie, what I object to was it being used for the entertainment of impressionable children. If you read my post, the last reference I made was to the jibes I personally received in the playground, which had your children been on the receiving end of you probably would not have been happy. Just because literature has some historical value, doesn't mean it's appropriate for the entertainment of children...I don't recall Mrs Jones sitting us all down in the classroom to hear a recital of the Kama Sutra or Lady Chatterley's Lover. :shock:
As to immigrants accepting a country's values..I see no problem with that whatsoever, I myself were born here and very much consider myself British and defend the British way of life quite vociferously. But I dont think 'accepting a country's values' should extend to being comfortable allowing your 6yo children to be chased round a schoolyard being called 'wog' or 'sambo'.
As I mentioned before, debates of this nature have the tendency to polarise the opinions of posters, making the one side look like raving, right wing lunatics and the other side, sandal wearing, limp wristed communists (how many people did I offend in that sentence?!). Basically I don't think any of us are that far away in our opinions. It's about common sense and good manners and thinking about how you would wish to be treated, yourself.
I also wonder how many stories of political correctness are apocryphal. Make up something that sounds ridiculous and blame it on political correctness..it then gives credibility to people who argue that the British way of life is changing, when in fact the only changes I've made to my language, when I look back and reflect on them, I have to say are changes for the better..someone mentioned earlier the word 'spastic' which was frequently used to describe disabled people..there are many examples like these.
It's ironic having this debate on a forum for marginalised members of British society (us, swingers!)..personally I think we should also benefit from political correctness as most members of the general public would use shorthand to describe usas 'sick' or 'perverts', many references like these I've read in newspapers when referring to the swinging community...and some may be true lol!!
Let's all just keep sweet & nice on this one...I'm going to church in a bit to beg for forgiveness lol

View Post

10 Sep 2005

Quote by Spongebob
Another of these Politically Correct nonsenses occurred the other week when I asked for a Black Coffee and was told that was an inappropriate and possibly racist term and that I should ask for either coffee with milk or coffee without,
WTF is that all about?

..who told you it was inappropriate Bob? I always ask for 'black' coffee, don't see any problem in that at all...don't think any black folks would confused

View Post

10 Sep 2005

Quote by freckledbird
To be honest, I haven't had to modify my language at all in the classroom, because I've only been teaching for a few years and the culture at university was as you describe Steanrachy. At the time it seemed a bit odd, but it's just a different word for some things. Language changes over time anyway; there are archaic words which at one time would have seemed 'everyday' and which have changed over time. To the people for whom they were 'everyday', the 'modern' words which replaced them, must have been viewed in much the same way as you view 'thought showers', 'chalkboards' and such.

...well said FB. Language is an organic, almost living thing, so discrete changes which help people live positively can't be a bad thing. I think it was Serendipity who earlier said it's really all about good manners. In conversations like this I invariably find myself defending 'political correctness' as it's called, which of course makes me appear like a feeble minded liberal (!), but then I remember some of the issues that started the debate in the first place..Enid Blyton books, Little Black Sambo, the Robinson's Golly & the like all seemed harmless enough 20 or 30 years ago, but most people who complain about the withdrawal of such images and texts weren't on the receving end of the jibes in the playground.

View Post

10 Sep 2005

Quote by Swingcleveland
Going back to the mention of Fern Britton though, she's a big lass but she's a bonny lass and there is something about her that says 'insatiable'.

..yes it's her waistline lol!
..but seriously, I've always found Fern a super sexy girl, even from the days when she read the news on the Beeb biggrin

View Post

6 Sep 2005

Quote by Sgt Bilko
What do we want?
POO!!!
When do we want it?
NOW!!!

..indeed, why is this thread still here..surely they should have been by now? :moon:
lol

View Post

5 Sep 2005

..you think you can pass a crown?
A tiara would be much easier lol

View Post

5 Sep 2005

Quote by limerickcpl
By the by, its possbile to grab any or MSN display pics using the print screen button. Web cams can be easily recorded using video screen capture software, some avaiable free, some for 30 day trial.

..blimey O'Riley..I never knew that..gonna hv to stop webcamming wearing me mum's wig and nightie redface

View Post

5 Sep 2005

..hope she doesn't read posts in here Wishy....she might make you die!!
lol

View Post

3 Sep 2005

Quote by bluexxx
I still want to know what total muppet was daft enough to buy a Virgin mobile

..virgin by name..virgin by nature..I guess we won't be seeing them on here then Blue!

View Post

25 Aug 2005

Quote by johneboy
firstly i'm amazed at all the replies "brilliant"
secondly outa 245 mails only 12 turned up,
why do we make it so dificult for each other i've read couples too choisy for guys, guys being too choisy for girls, blimey swinging isnt about finding a wife or hubby it's about a little extra sex. we've all read it " N.S.A". NO STRINGS ATTACHED . fun believe me having to reply to 245 guys and only 5% turn up aint a lot of fun for the effort taken.

did it only just finish? write to the Guinness Book of Records, the longest Gangbang in recorded history lol

..pmsl

View Post

25 Aug 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
does it not take two people to have bare back sex and does it not also take a guy whos willing to have sex without a condom? so why is it the woman whos got the germs, and could it not be the guy whos got HIV/AIDS hows comes ur not wondering what germs these guys have got as well

..have to agree with you here NN, blokes who find BB sex a thrill are likely to be serial BB shaggers! Another thing to mention along with the STD concern is of course the viral risks to any unborn baby conceived in this way...what a thing to discover when you're grown up...'you got AIDS cos I found it thrilling letting a stranger fuck me without a condom!'

View Post

2 Aug 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
Ps..on a wider level, even sane, sensible people make assumptions about how one partner feels about a particular activity, as It's nearly impossible to set down ground rules for all eventualities..we can have basic ground rules, but when preferences have been over elaborated or too specific, things come to feel mechanical & contrived..sometimes spoiling the fun before it's begun!
Oh the woes of the modern swinger :cry: :cry:

blimey i have been swinging for over 5 years now and i never realised it was soooooooooo complicated lol
i'm glad i have a easy life and marrage lol

..nor did I until the call I received last week!
Hope yours remains fun and uncomplicated smile

View Post

2 Aug 2005

Ps..on a wider level, even sane, sensible people make assumptions about how one partner feels about a particular activity, as It's nearly impossible to set down ground rules for all eventualities..we can have basic ground rules, but when preferences have been over elaborated or too specific, things come to feel mechanical & contrived..sometimes spoiling the fun before it's begun!
Oh the woes of the modern swinger :cry: :cry: lol

View Post

2 Aug 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
Personally i would keep my gob shut and let them sort it out, its upto her to speak to her hubby about how she feels and if she can't even do that u have 2 wonder what kind of relationship they have....
U put she can't talk to him about how she feel in fear of upsetting him....
what kind of husband would get upset over their wife saying how she feel in a swinging situation if she was unhappy about it!!!
sound a odd couple to me and if i met someone who was unhappy about what they was doing and only doing what their hubby wanted i would soon put them on my not to meet no more list

thanks for that NN, I've known them for a long time now..and they do actually have a really good relationship, as far as I can see..and I dont think either is using swinging as an Elastoplast for a failiing marriage.
I guess the mistake they have (he has) made though is to assume that because we, as swingers, are perhaps more liberated than most, that 'anything goes' and they should have had the conversation beforehand about taking things beyond a 'normal' threesome.
Having gone along with it the wife isn't afraid to speak to hubby, she just acknowledges that he obviously enjoyed it much more than she did (or he appears to, maybe he was faking it too!) and therefore doesn't want to upset him (not that it's guaranteed he would)..my advice to her was to try and clear the air now before she got even further into it.
The question you have to ask yourself is what goes on behind closed door, the side to their marrage u do not see, its easy to put on a show when other are about, not saying that they are but.....if she feels she can't talk to her own hubbie there's something wrong in that relationship, u say u doubt he would get upset, yet she obviously thinks he will so the question is do u know him better than her.....or have things been said between them u don't know about?
thanks again NN, I did say that I'm not aware of everything that goes on and my comments are based on what the wife has told me, my knowledge of their personalities since I've known them and my own intuition..which could definitely be flawed!
I tried not to overstate the 'can't talk to hubby' reference..she can, but worries so much she doesnt want to disappoint him (her natural demeanor is quite reticent & submissive..and she's ok with that dynamic. He's also quite laid back and goes with the flow).
I mentioned previously that she (& I) are making a lot of assumptions..maybe hubby doesnt like the 4some thing either but doesnt say anything assuming she's happy with all of it. The upshot of reading everyones contributions is that I think it is best for me to not get too heavily involved in dialogue that should have been had between thema long time ago...just so they know they're singing from the same songsheet. biggrin

View Post

2 Aug 2005

Quote by easyease
one more case that prooves that marriage and swinging are like oil and water.............

..that's not necessarily the case Easyease..to involve any 3rd party in your marriage is a big deal for most people and they've been doing that successfully with me for some time now. Whatever their difficulties, they're not about 'swinging' per se but communication and finding their own level of mutual satisfaction..
forgot to say..thanks for your continued contributions smile

View Post

2 Aug 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
Personally i would keep my gob shut and let them sort it out, its upto her to speak to her hubby about how she feels and if she can't even do that u have 2 wonder what kind of relationship they have....
U put she can't talk to him about how she feel in fear of upsetting him....
what kind of husband would get upset over their wife saying how she feel in a swinging situation if she was unhappy about it!!!
sound a odd couple to me and if i met someone who was unhappy about what they was doing and only doing what their hubby wanted i would soon put them on my not to meet no more list

thanks for that NN, I've known them for a long time now..and they do actually have a really good relationship, as far as I can see..and I dont think either is using swinging as an Elastoplast for a failiing marriage.
I guess the mistake they have (he has) made though is to assume that because we, as swingers, are perhaps more liberated than most, that 'anything goes' and they should have had the conversation beforehand about taking things beyond a 'normal' threesome.
Having gone along with it the wife isn't afraid to speak to hubby, she just acknowledges that he obviously enjoyed it much more than she did (or he appears to, maybe he was faking it too!) and therefore doesn't want to upset him (not that it's guaranteed he would)..my advice to her was to try and clear the air now before she got even further into it.

View Post

2 Aug 2005

Quote by freckledbird

Ps..one 40 something, minutely endowed black guy, (with a conscience!), newly available for luncheons, Fairy Liquid adverts, escorting rich widows and occasional 3 somes!

Hmmmm - what if we don't do luncheons, are allergic to Fairy Liquid and are neither rich nor widows?
oh sorry Freckled.....I should have made special mention of Yorkshire based, red heads being a particular delight lol! lol

View Post

1 Aug 2005

Quote by KitKat

..the lady concerned has not asked me to not say anything, you may have mis-interpreted my original post..

True - When I saw the posts about being 'not clear' I went back and read your post again, and I hadn't understood it properly.
Your decision not to get involved is the right one though. She may have wanted you to talk to him, without openly saying so, but would he want his wife talking to you in the first place?
From your post, it appears, that at the end of the evening you WERE comfortable. To try and say otherwise means you are trying to express somebody else's feelings - Based on what you feel she may have been hinting that she wants you to do..
A situation custom made for making a pigs ear of things if there ever was one.
lhk
Kat
thanks for coming back to me Kat, with the benefit of the comments made here by others, yourself and my own reservations, it's probably right that I leave this potential quagmire for them to sort out...what I would hate would be if we carried on, me knowing she wasn't happy and him knowing nothing and assuming we were all willing parties...that would just be crap.
Thanks everyone for your help and advice.
Al
Ps..one 40 something, minutely endowed black guy, (with a conscience!), newly available for luncheons, Fairy Liquid adverts, escorting rich widows and occasional 3 somes!
smile

View Post

1 Aug 2005

Quote by KitKat
My advice would be to do as you have been told and keep your mouth shut.
Doing anything else would probably be considered a betrayal by both halves of the couple, and it is likely that it would also cause additional friction between the two partners.
No means no - and you have been told not to say anything. Respect the boundaries that have been set for you and stop trying to find ways to get round them.
My suggestion would be to stop swinging with them and allow them to sort out there own issues.
lhk
Kat

..the lady concerned has not asked me to notsay anything, you may have mis-interpreted my original post. In fact I got the feeling that she was wanting me to talk to her hub on her behalf, hence the phone call she made to me in the first place. In any event I would never be so cavalier as to take hubby to one side and blurt out his wife's misgivings..any intervention from me would be along the lines of "I don't feel entirely comfortable with the way things are going" (as Xman kindly suggested) or "have you spoken to wife about how she feels about this..maybe she may share my misgivings, because it's a bold step for all us"
At the end of the day, I will probably say nothing and cease my sexual relationship with this couple as to me it seems that both parties are not mutually benefitting from the swinging lifestyle.

View Post

Forum