Jump to content

Cardinal Pell


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 783
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

All I can say is that I am glad that Tim has done what he has....to bring it to the forefront and have people realize a little more of what may have been done, all I can do is wait my turn to give evi

I probably have a bit of a unique insight into this. I was at the school when the attacks happened: in year 11 to be exact. I knew/know many exCcathedral College choir kids. I attended the masses and

To be fair, Pell was a senior cleric in parishes all over the state/country that have had thousands of cases of proven child sexual abuse. In all these cases, it has since emerged that there were alwa

Posted Images

Ahhh yes, the old "I know I have no argument so I'll makes some sort of quip about lefty mumbo-jumbo" argument

Â

That should distract everyone from your complete lack of reasoned and considered views ...

My argument would be that Jesus would call these lobbyists and right wing shock jocks and journalists modern day Pharisees. The politicians of the right misuse their "religious" beliefs to suit themselves. While they are in step with church teachings on marriage, LNP policies re asylum is in direct contradiction to Catholic Social justice teaching. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference has been vocal I pointing this out. I also just read that the Bishop of Wollongong has urged all Catholics to see Spotlight

These anti gay lobbyists I would also see as a very vocal minority among Christians. They do not speak for me or most people I know

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Parkside, and I agree that there is varying views on lots of this stuff (even look at people like Father Rod Bower from Gosford who does some great stuff). So I recognise that there are some 'outliers' with a slightly less harsh message.

But from where I am sitting people with more moderate views are just that - 'outliers'. There are a few quiet little ministers who say a few things here and there, and a few people who say "they don't speak for me",

 

But on the whole it's the nutbags that have the floor!

 

One can't help but think these guys reflect the views of mainstream Christians/catholics etc.

 

I certainly don't hear anyone of a religious pursuation getting up and saying "hang on Bernardi, whats wrong with programs that are aimed at stopping bullying?"

 

Over the last week there have been a lot of religious types jumping to the immediate defence of Pell.

 

BUT, I haven't heard on religious person stand up in a spotlight and say "the most important thing is to help these poor people that have been abused and the church, including Pell, should do everything they can to focus on THAT ..."

Edited by TryTriB4Forty
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not read Kristina Keneally's piece in the Guardian?

 

A lot of religious types? You mean Bolt. He is better known for being a hideous racist than a religious man.

 

Tanya Plibersek has been into Bernardi over bullying vs chaplains ETC. I don't know anything about her religious beliefs or otherwise but she doesn't need to mention them with every statement she makes

 

An empty vessel makes the most noise. Abbott, ScoMo, Bernardi are very vocal about how religious they are, yet their opinions and actions are often the antithesis of Christian. They speak for themselves and a small minority.

Edited by Parkside
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, and I did read Keneally's thing a week or so ago. She was a pretty lonely catholic voice though, was she not?

 

Certainly up my way there was a LOT of Christian folk defending Pell and saying how disgraceful Minchins song was - up to and including a live radio interview with the Bishop of my diocese.

 

I agree entirely with your comments regarding Bolt and Bernardi, especially the bits about how they speak for themselves and are better known as bigots than Christians. Point taken. I just wish, if these guys (and the likes of my local Bishop and the ACL and so on) don't represent the views of mainstream Christian people, then I wish there was some equally loud voices along those lines.

 

I especially like 'an empty vessel makes the most noise' comment....very apt for Bernardi et al.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanja is Catholic, still goes to St Pats at Sutho for Christmas mass, just doesn't use religion as politics like Keneally, Bernardi, bolt and co.

 

One of the hard things for the religions is its a job for life so whilst normal employes just get sacked, the Catholic Church traditionally puts up its servants for life regardless of their morals.

 

Can't help but feel if the world put humanity before religion, it would be a better place.

Edited by Oompa Loompa
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BUT, I haven't heard on religious person stand up in a spotlight and say "the most important thing is to help these poor people that have been abused and the church, including Pell, should do everything they can to focus on THAT ..."

I've heard plenty of them, even Bishops of said Catholic church. There's plenty of people who DO talk about doing what's right and following that Jesus character. It's more a matter of a select small bunch of assholes like Bernardi know how to bombthrow - but there's plenty of religious leaders decrying him, the ACL, Pell etc and demaning focus on the poor, the sick, the homeless, refugees, victims of abuse etc.

 

Just because some small cult like say Westbro screams about God hates Fags and is very loud about it, doesnt mean a vastly bigger number of Christians are appalled and also speak out against this kind of hate speech. Much of the time, the media chooses to report on the bombthrowers and not the ones trying to defuse said bombs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if every single Islamic religious leader doesn't instantly condemn each and every act or statement of terrorism from a Muslim they are supporters, what do we think about the lack of damnation of kiddy fiddlers by the church?

Not sure you need to play the muslim card, could have just put terrorism without it,

 

As to the question, no, if they don't know about it, they don't need to condemn it but any religious leader should condemn any act of terrorism they hear about. I've sat through more Catholic mass's than roast dinners and quite often the priest will condemn acts of violence, even local ones.

 

For me it's not every, but its what they know about and its a whole another ball game covering it up by moving it on or perpetrating it yourself.

 

Begs an interesting question though, church's have traditionally been places to hide, but that was the church covering up against unjust laws as opposed to penetrating a child.

 

I think the real issue is religion, rightly or wrongly, it attracts the weak , and if you have a pool big enough, you will get victims, wether a gun toting 15 year old or a 15 year old getting buggered. By its nature, it's about following, sure it has leadership, but it's very nature is to follow as without that there is no religion. You then get the elements that take advantage of that, that are not necessarily there for religion but other reasons.

 

Epicurus asked the question and probably had it right but there are billions of people filling a hole through faith as it gives them hope and we can't deny those that need it. Religion is valuable to our society, as are other institutions but things will always go wrong where humans are involved, it's just where blind faith gets in the way and those things that have gone wrong can't / won't be brought to account or are hidden from account.

 

Religion does good and has wonderful people within it, it also does bad and has some shockers, bit like society really.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes, the old "I know I have no argument so I'll makes some sort of quip about lefty mumbo-jumbo" argument

Â

That should distract everyone from your complete lack of reasoned and considered views ...

Of course suggesting i should vote for the 'benardi retardi' party is a carefully thought out point of view. Or as your spiritual leader would call it, a real 'zinger'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You don't sniff the slightest whiff of a conflict of interest there?

 

You may be right though, it could be all the world ganging up on the poor Catholic Church, especially as they do not, in any way, have a track record of closing ranks to protect their own :wink3:

So you are accusing them of a deliberate misdiagnosis?

 

We both know you have no factual foundation to make that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But BOTP is the most entertaining person on here....

 

Im just waiting for someone to realise hes NOT actually Tones Abbott in disguise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We all know BOTP is really Donald Trump!

Another carefully reasoned post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are accusing them of a deliberate misdiagnosis?

 

We both know you have no factual foundation to make that point.

 

Dude, you are a master of logical fallacies. Please, learn how to construct an argument without resorting to such things; by continuing to do so, you discredit yourself and your position. You have used a strawman here, please take the time to read-up what it is, and then restore your credibility in a discussion by never using it again.

 

I state that there is a conflict of interest, and you claim that by doing so, I am actually accusing them of misdiagnoses. Whether the diagnosis is accurate or not, there is a conflict of interest - please tell me you understand that basic concept!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Â

Dude, you are a master of logical fallacies. Please, learn how to construct an argument without resorting to such things; by continuing to do so, you discredit yourself and your position. You have used a strawman here, please take the time to read-up what it is, and then restore your credibility in a discussion by never using it again.

Â

I state that there is a conflict of interest, and you claim that by doing so, I am actually accusing them of misdiagnoses. Whether the diagnosis is accurate or not, there is a conflict of interest - please tell me you understand that basic concept!

You are saying there is a conflict between the person's duty as a doctor and their interest in the catholic church.

 

And pray. Has this conflict resulted in?

 

Or is your concern the perception of conflict rather than an actual conflict?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any finding against him yet? I did ask a few pages back.

No. But I know in future when there are any allegations about a Labor politician or Union official or anyone from 'the left' that you will be quiet unless or until there is a finding against them.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You are saying there is a conflict between the person's duty as a doctor and their interest in the catholic church.

I don't see why there wouldn't be. Isn't the church the higher priority? Clearly the church has a priority to protect itself, and in that it's priests. I have no doubt a Vatican doctor of their choice will do exactly what is required of themselves. There are doctors out there doing shady stuff every day in the name of the almighty dollar. What if the 'right' one their docs was asked to do something in the name of the almighty? God before king and country right?

 

While you may say he's been questioned twice already. Maybe they want to question him a third time because his responses have been unsatisfactory! Doctor Phil doesn't accept 'I can't recalls' either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Perspective.

Whether or not you want to claim it's for perspective, IT'S STILL A STRAWMAN!

 

So, let's play: what perspective are you trying to convey? That unless a collective of individuals have achieved the same as another collective, they are not allowed to pass comment on that collective in any way? That a group of individuals with a certain policial leaning are the equivalent of a multi-billion dollar cult, and must achieve the same as that cult before passing comment? Enlighten me on the perspective you are bringing to the discussion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are saying there is a conflict between the person's duty as a doctor and their interest in the catholic church.

 

And pray. Has this conflict resulted in?

 

Or is your concern the perception of conflict rather than an actual conflict?

 

Please read-up what a "conflict of interest" means mate, your comment shows you don't know at all.

 

Let's try by example, please take this as an example and don't use it as a literal equivalent to the current discussion. I'm a TO. If I'm a TO on the bike and my mates are racing, let's say for argument's sake that one is a Pro and is in with a shout at a podium place. Before the race has even began, before any actual issue has arisen (are we clear so far? Nobody is even in the water yet, let alone been carded on the bike), there is a conflict of interest. There's my interest in seeing my mate podium, and there's my interest in upholding my duty as a TO. I know I will uphold my duty as a TO, but to everyone else there could possibly be a conflict of interest. IT DOES NOT MATTER whether anything has resulted from it. Let me quote from Wikipedia (my bold):

 

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.

 

 

 

See the bold, does it make sense?

 

Let's look at it the other way. If a Doctor who was abused at the hands of a priest when younger was called on to assess whether Pell could travel, there absolutely is a conflict of interest there as well.

 

Please tell me you understand the concept of conflict of interest now!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ÃÃÂ

Please read-up what a "conflict of interest" means mate, your comment shows you don't know at all.

ÃÃÂ

Let's try by example, please take this as an example and don't use it as a literal equivalent to the current discussion. I'm a TO. If I'm a TO on the bike and my mates are racing, let's say for argument's sake that one is a Pro and is in with a shout at a podium place. Before the race has even began, before any actual issue has arisen (are we clear so far? Nobody is even in the water yet, let alone been carded on the bike), there is a conflict of interest. There's my interest in seeing my mate podium, and there's my interest in upholding my duty as a TO. I know I will uphold my duty as a TO, but to everyone else there could possibly be a conflict of interest. IT DOES NOT MATTER whether anything has resulted from it. Let me quote from Wikipedia (my bold):

ÃÃÂ

ÃÃÂ

See the bold, does it make sense?

ÃÃÂ

Let's look at it the other way. If a Doctor who was abused at the hands of a priest when younger was called on to assess whether Pell could travel, there absolutely is a conflict of interest there as well.

ÃÃÂ

Please tell me you understand the concept of conflict of interest now!

Lets say pell went to one of you guys.

 

Now you would be horribly conflicted. Because based on not really knowing all the facts you've reached all the conclusions.

 

Can you define the actual conflicting interests using the wiki definition?

 

For me. It's potentially the conflict btw the person's duty as a doctor (ie to properly diagnose etc) v. Dr's allegiance to church.

 

Without misdiagnosis you are not talking about an actual conflict but the perception of conflict.

 

I think i understand concept ok.

Edited by Formerly known as BOTP II
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not you want to claim it's for perspective, IT'S STILL A STRAWMAN!

 

So, let's play: what perspective are you trying to convey? That unless a collective of individuals have achieved the same as another collective, they are not allowed to pass comment on that collective in any way? That a group of individuals with a certain policial leaning are the equivalent of a multi-billion dollar cult, and must achieve the same as that cult before passing comment? Enlighten me on the perspective you are bringing to the discussion!

There is a line of argument that a christian is not really a good Christian if they believe in certain things.

 

What do green left supporters do to consolidate there sense of intellectual and moral superiority about helping out the little guy ? (Tweeting doesn't count).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first two paragraphs make no sense to the discussion in relation to the COI. The facts relating to this simple conflict of interest are obvious.

 

Pell is being called to Australia to be questioned on issues sensitive to his employer. A Doctor employed by the same employer is called-on to judge whether he can make such a trip. It is in the best interest of the employer to keep Pell from travelling. There could be a conflict of interest between making the correct call as a Doctor and (I think the Dr is male):

 

- following orders (his job being at risk)

- his faith.

 

Think back to my example of being a TO. I know I'll make the right decision as a TO, but others may think there's a conflict with:

 

- friend's request to turn a blind eye.

- my friendship.

 

Neither you nor I have any evidence whether the decision was or was not biased. That is not part of the discussion. However the position the Doctor is in is one which presents a conflict of interest.

 

Another example. The UK are investigating my company for tax evasion. I'm called to give evidence in the UK. A Doctor, employed by my company tells the UK I'm too sick to travel. I could be at Death's door and it's obvious I couldn't travel, however there is still a conflict of interest.

 

Edit to add, as you edited your post after I sent.

 

You are starting to get it slowly :wink3:

 

It is about the 'perception'. That's why I added the bold to the definition: 'could be'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a line of argument that a christian is not really a good Christian if they believe in certain things.

 

What do green left supporters do to consolidate there sense of intellectual and moral superiority about helping out the little guy ? (Tweeting doesn't count).

Sorry mate, I don't see this as adding perspective.

 

One is a religion demanding faith and obediance and ever lasting pain and torment for wandering from the path. The other is a political position.

 

I don't see the perspective of the "green left" not delivering on stuff they rant about and the buggering of children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to thank FBOTP2 for single handedly keeping my thread alive and kicking! It was getting too easy with pretty much everyone in the thread agreeing that Pell and his catholic kin are monsters that need to answer for their sins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example. The UK are investigating my company for tax evasion. I'm called to give evidence in the UK. A Doctor, employed by my company tells the UK I'm too sick to travel. I could be at Death's door and it's obvious I couldn't travel, however there is still a conflict of interest.

 

 

 

You wouldn't need a Dr. There are so many companies on that bandwagon right now, you'd die of old age before your turn came up. :schnauz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first two paragraphs make no sense to the discussion in relation to the COI. The facts relating to this simple conflict of interest are obvious.

 

Pell is being called to Australia to be questioned on issues sensitive to his employer. A Doctor employed by the same employer is called-on to judge whether he can make such a trip. It is in the best interest of the employer to keep Pell from travelling. There could be a conflict of interest between making the correct call as a Doctor and (I think the Dr is male):

 

- following orders (his job being at risk)

- his faith.

 

Think back to my example of being a TO. I know I'll make the right decision as a TO, but others may think there's a conflict with:

 

- friend's request to turn a blind eye.

- my friendship.

 

Neither you nor I have any evidence whether the decision was or was not biased. That is not part of the discussion. However the position the Doctor is in is one which presents a conflict of interest.

 

Another example. The UK are investigating my company for tax evasion. I'm called to give evidence in the UK. A Doctor, employed by my company tells the UK I'm too sick to travel. I could be at Death's door and it's obvious I couldn't travel, however there is still a conflict of interest.

 

Edit to add, as you edited your post after I sent.

 

You are starting to get it slowly :wink3:

 

It is about the 'perception'. That's why I added the bold to the definition: 'could be'.

You defined the conflict exactly as i originally did.

 

Conflict btw duty as a dr v. Allegiance to church.

 

Do you get paid by the word?

Edited by Formerly known as BOTP II
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to thank FBOTP2 for single handedly keeping my thread alive and kicking! It was getting too easy with pretty much everyone in the thread agreeing that Pell and his catholic kin are monsters that need to answer for their sins.

Does paul bonjiorno fall within that 'catholic kin' bucket?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, I don't see this as adding perspective.

 

One is a religion demanding faith and obediance and ever lasting pain and torment for wandering from the path. The other is a political position.

 

I don't see the perspective of the "green left" not delivering on stuff they rant about and the buggering of children.

Well if andrew bolt is being drafted in as an example of religious people and the hypocrisy of their belief system. I think a bit of a stab at the greens as the paragon of humanist values and the hypocrisy that for a lot this does not extend much beyond chat is sort of on point.

 

You guys set up a whole bunch of tenous strawman arguments. And then scream 'strawman' when i parody the 'mumbo jumbo'.

Edited by Formerly known as BOTP II
Link to post
Share on other sites

You defined the conflict exactly as i originally did.

 

Conflict btw duty as a dr v. Allegiance to church.

 

Do you get paid by the word?

 

Nice attempt to backtrack, and then sidestep your earlier demonstration of not understanding it.

 

I defined the concept for you, and you questioned that: "You are saying there is a conflict between the person's duty as a doctor and their interest in the catholic church...And pray. Has this conflict resulted in?"

 

You were challenging the concept of conflict of interest, to quote "Or is your concern the perception of conflict rather than an actual conflict?", again repeated later: "Without misdiagnosis you are not talking about an actual conflict but the perception of conflict." From your original response in relation to comments made on a COI: "So you are accusing them of a deliberate misdiagnosis?"

 

Even after explaining again, you said "Can you define the actual conflicting interests using the wiki definition?", so I answered your question. If I'm paid by the word, you employed me :wink3:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if andrew bolt is being drafted in as an example of religious people and the hypocrisy of their belief system. I think a bit of a stab at the greens as the paragon of humanist values and the hypocrisy that for a lot this does not extend much beyond chat is sort of on point.

 

You guys set up a whole bunch of tenous strawman arguments. And then scream 'strawman' when i parody the 'mumbo jumbo'.

 

Umm, OK, let me follow that thought through.

 

Because someone has made comments defending an institution you like, and that person has then been criticised, you think it's only right and fair to criticise people en masse who take a political position you don't like?

 

I'm not a 'green', so I'm not defending them here, I just can't see how attacking them can ever be part of the discussion. Why don't you provide content we can read in defence of what Bolt said? If he is being criticised unfairly, then defend the position directly and not divert by attacking something else which you think needs to be attacked in the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ÃÂ

Nice attempt to backtrack, and then sidestep your earlier demonstration of not understanding it.

ÃÂ

I defined the concept for you, and you questioned that: "You are saying there is a conflict between the person's duty as a doctor and their interest in the catholic church...And pray. Has this conflict resulted in?"

ÃÂ

You were challenging the concept of conflict of interest, to quote "Or is your concern the perception of conflict rather than an actual conflict?", again repeated later: "Without misdiagnosis you are not talking about an actual conflict but the perception of conflict." From your original response in relation to comments made on a COI: "So you are accusing them of a deliberate misdiagnosis?"

ÃÂ

Even after explaining again, you said "Can you define the actual conflicting interests using the wiki definition?", so I answered your question. If I'm paid by the word, you employed me :wink3:

Lets agree to disagree.

 

As stated in Oz today. "The hysterical hatred whipped up ahead of ...Pell's appearance... has been bigoted and vile'.

 

See certain posts above.

Edited by Formerly known as BOTP II
Link to post
Share on other sites

ÃÂ

Umm, OK, let me follow that thought through.

ÃÂ

Because someone has made comments defending an institution you like, and that person has then been criticised, you think it's only right and fair to criticise people en masseÃÂ who take a political position you don't like?

ÃÂ

I'm not a 'green', so I'm not defending them here, I just can't see how attacking them can ever be part of the discussion.ÃÂ Why don't you provide content we can read in defence of what Bolt said? If he is being criticised unfairly, then defend the position directly and not divert by attacking something else which you think needs to be attacked in the same way.

I think you've missed the chronology of the thread. Started with pell bashing into generalised christan bashing. And someone then had temerity to spoil the mob hate.

 

And bolt was drafted in as a Christian symbol. So i'm puzzled to as to his relevance.

Edited by Formerly known as BOTP II
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate. I've actually been paid to write advices on conflict. But please keep up the condescending tone. I can see the next post now.

 

As stated in Oz today. "The hysterical hatred whipped up ahead of ...Pell's appearance... has been bigoted and vile'.

 

See certain posts above.

 

Call it what you like mate, and claim all the authority you want, the above demonstrates different.

 

Selective indeed, let's fill in those blanks:

 

"Most of the damage was self-inflicted across decades, although the hysterical hatred whipped up ahead of Cardinal George Pell’s appearance before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been bigoted and vile. And, controversially, Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson — vice-president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference — is back at work, despite facing criminal charges alleging he failed to report child abuse committed by a priest in Maitland in NSW 40 years ago...Bishop Mulkearns’s extraordinary admission that he “had no idea of the effects of the incidents that took place” was as grotesque as his admission to Commissioner Peter McClellan that “I don’t know really” if the sodomy of small boys and the rape of small girls had always been a crime."

 

I'll quote Tim Minchin's blog, which goes someway to explain the hysterical hatred:

 

To those who were outraged by the judgmental language in Come Home, you must understand: this is the language of anger. I owe George Pell no reverence beyond that which he has earned through his words and deeds. I, and many other Australians, are angry.
If you don’t understand why, perhaps it’s just a failure of imagination. Perhaps you need to picture one of the victims as your 9-year-old son or daughter?
Link to post
Share on other sites

ÃÂ

Call it what you like mate, and claim all the authority you want, the above demonstrates different.

ÃÂ

Selective indeed, let's fill in those blanks:

ÃÂ

"Most of the damage was self-inflicted across decades, although the hysterical hatred whipped up ahead of Cardinal George Pellâs appearance before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been bigoted and vile. And, controversially, Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson â vice-president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference â is back at work, despite facing criminal charges alleging he failed to report child abuse committed by a priest in Maitland in NSW 40 years ago...Bishop Mulkearnsâs extraordinary admission that he âhad no idea of the effects of the incidents that took placeâ was as grotesque as his admission to Commissioner Peter McClellan that âI donât know reallyâ if the sodomy of small boys and the rape of small girls had always been a crime."

ÃÂ

I'll quote Tim Minchin's blog, which goes someway to explain the hysterical hatred:

ÃÂ

If you actually read the first thing i wrote it was to the effect catholic church deserved a kicking for the history and its difficult to have faith in institutions. Quote one bit above where i've suggested otherwise. I don't quibble with editorial. You impute things that aren't said and then call out 'strawman'?

 

How does the left feel about that assange fella hiding away from his sex assault charges ? Its one conspiracy after another. Pell and his malpracticing vatican doctor to avoid fronting up to sex charges.

 

And the issue of controversy re pell is - what is his responsibility for the kids who were abused. That's one of the things the RC will consider right? Minchin misses that nuance because he's reached his own conclusion.

 

But i've not said he's not entitled to a view.

 

And then julian assange. the poor innocent being falsely accused by the rabid swedish govt of sex charge - dastardly swedes renowned for their right wing govts and manufacturing of spurious sex charges.

Edited by Formerly known as BOTP II
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...