Page 11 of 134 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 3992

Thread: Some Non-trivial Things That Annoy Me.

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    I didn't say it wasn't a bad problem, I said it was an inconsistent, unpredictable problem. If non-smokers are going to be optimistic and go to a restaurant in the hope that nobody will spoil the evening for them, that removes the apparent demand for smoke-free restaurants.
    If you were to have the choice between a smoking and a smoke-free restaurant and you would prefer the smoke-free restaurant, isn't that pretty much the definition of a demand for smoke-free restaurants? Ergo, since there is no apparent demand, even if given the choice between the smoking and smoke-free restaurant a non-smoker would still go to the smoking restaurant anyway. If that's how much it is worth to non-smokers, then on what grounds would legal intervention be required by them?

    And smoke-free bars did appear, although there was always the uncerta
    Then it's not a smoke-free bar, is it?

    No, it had to be legally enforced because the goodwill of smokers was insufficient.
    You are expecting increasing goodwill of smokers, yet wouldn't even be bothered to go to a smoke-free restaurant if it were next to the smoking one (ie create demand for smoke-free environments)? If there is an insufficiency of goodwill there, i'm not so certain it's with the smokers' side.

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    335
    Another talking point/reason given for banning smoking, in clubs, bars, and restaurants, had to do with the employees.

    I recall a lot of employees in front of TV Cameras (with their faces blurred out),
    and a lot of quotes from 'employees who wish to remain anonymous' in newspapers,
    complaining about not being able to find a job they could get, with their skill set,
    that was non-smoking.

    The media coverage I saw was slanted; they never gave any reason why there shouldn't be a smoking ban.

    This really annoyed me whenever a sports program ran long, and I had to sit through time-shifted Local News, so I could watch my favorite TV Shows.
    I take my favorite TV Shows pretty seriously, since the ones I like have story arcs that won't make sense if you miss an episode, or watch them out of order.
    That was way back, before I got a DVR.

    TL;DR Version:
    I get very annoyed when televised sports games run long, and don't like Local News programs.
    Not to sound racist, but... Some of my best friends are smokers!
    Last edited by Cookie; 2013-Nov-03 at 12:18 PM. Reason: Added TL;DR Version

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    14,716
    When smoking was banned in bars and restaurants in this state, they were all screaming that they'd lose all their business and go broke. Didn't happen. The last refuge of public smoking is now tribal casinos, which is just one of a long list of reasons we won't be going there.

    And I'm kind of sorry I brought the subject up.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,967
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Care to elaborate on how it was an "unreal way" for her to avoid smoke in restaurants by, say, starting a smoke-free restaurant herself? Or perhaps just not going to restaurants anymore? Perhaps you could explain the apparent existence of the dichotomy between "being able to go to restaurants" and "being a hermit"? I haven't been to a restaurant in years, does that make me a hermit?
    Maybe she couldn't cook, was a lousy businesswoman, or had some health problem that meant that starting a restaurant herself wasn't feasible; it's not a very practical solution, given how expensive it is to start a restaurant.

    But let's ignore restaurants. Let's go back to my point about being unable to walk down the street without dealing with others' smoke. I was seven months pregnant and sitting at a bus shelter under the no-smoking sign. The woman next to me lit up. I informed her that I was seven months pregnant and asked her not to smoke. She said, "It's public property!" And this is a case where she was not supposed to be smoking where she was. I had to move to avoid her smoke, because she felt her right to pollute the air was more important than my right to breathe air without tobacco smoke in it. Do you agree that she was being rude? There was no one around with any power to enforce the no-smoking sign; it relies on the goodwill of smokers in most locations, as all bus stop shelters in my area are no-smoking. I have yet to see one that didn't have cigarette butts scattered all over it unless it had just been cleaned.

    And that's the thing--smoking is a whole constellation of rude behaviours. It isn't universally true, but smokers do seem inclined to throw cigarette butts around. My neighbours smoke in the entryway of our building (against the rules, but they don't care and the complex won't enforce it, even though it's against fire code), and there is ash literally ground into the pavement of their step. More fires are started by careless smokers than just about any other cause; it's a rare summer that we don't get half a dozen median fires up here that are started by some idiot who has thrown a cigarette butt out the window while driving down the freeway. Smokers are imposing their choice on those around them. Now, the argument is that non-smokers are, too. And I suppose that's true. However, the non-smokers' choice in my opinion ought to be the default, and smokers ought to be required to seek special permission, because the non-smokers' choice isn't poisoning the smokers.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    11,057
    What Gillian said.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,623
    I have to work with a smoker for hours, and there was a note from our common boss that it was allowed. I have a photocopy of that in case I get cancer.

    My parents were smokers. My Dad smoked Chesterfield kings, my Mom Winston 100s. They would drag me to church after my Mom used half a can of Aqua-net on my hair--but let me try to roll down the window to breathe....and I would get screamed at--about how it would mess up my hair. I couldn't win

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    So the solution is to remove the possibility of enjoyment of the evening by the smoker? Is there any inherent reason why the enjoyment of the smoker's evening is subordinate to the enjoyment of the non-smoker's evening?
    Your right to swing a fist stops at my face.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    All right, since I see there's still conversation about my mother's situation by parties who are unaware of her circumstances at the time, let me jump back into this long enough to clarify.

    At the time my mother was having severe breathing problems, we lived in one state while most of our relatives lived in another. She was still working then, and rarely got time to drive all the way there to spend with her brother and mother, but they could meet near the middle at the state border. Since the usual time they could meet was around midday, they usually met for lunch.

    She also had a group of friends whom she would get together with, usually they were able to find time to meet on weekday evenings. Dinnertime. Her kitchen was small and could not accommodate many visitors. She would by preference meet at someone's home, but that was not always possible.

    If my mother went into a place (not just eateries but anyplace) where people were smoking, she usually left and went elsewhere. In circumstances where she could not, she would ask to be in the nonsmoking section. In places that did not have one, she would place herself as far from smokers as possible. Only in cases where someone lit up near enough that their smoke made her have trouble breathing, would she approach them.

    It certainly had nothing to do with "enjoyment of an evening", nor did it imply that she dislikes smokers or was rude to them in any way.

    Incidentally, there is no "right to smoke" any more than there is a "right to drink alcohol". What you put into your body is your business, but what you exhale into my lungs is mine.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,374
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Care to elaborate on how it was an "unreal way" for her to avoid smoke in restaurants by, say, starting a smoke-free restaurant herself?
    I can't take this question seriously.

    Or perhaps just not going to restaurants anymore?


    I believe this sort of attitude helped get the laws passed here. It certainly is the type of thing that makes me feel they were well justified.

    Perhaps you could explain the apparent existence of the dichotomy between "being able to go to restaurants" and "being a hermit"?
    It wasn't just restaurants. It was a general problem avoiding smoke.

    At the very least the argument has unstated premises, so even though it may turn out to be rational, it is certainly not at this point.
    We'll just have to disagree on that.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Maybe she couldn't cook, was a lousy businesswoman, or had some health problem that meant that starting a restaurant herself wasn't feasible; it's not a very practical solution, given how expensive it is to start a restaurant.
    So if it's not a practical solution for me to organize rock concerts that, in and of itself, means that others should turn down the volume of their concerts when i arrive?

    But let's ignore restaurants. Let's go back to my point about being unable to walk down the street without dealing with others' smoke.
    So even if there are no health effects, as Korjik mentioned about open-air smoking, then on what basis do you say that you should be able to walk down the street without people smoking? You just don't like the smell? Should it be illegal for flatulent people to walk down the street as well?

    I was seven months pregnant and sitting at a bus shelter under the no-smoking sign. The woman next to me lit up. I informed her that I was seven months pregnant and asked her not to smoke. She said, "It's public property!" And this is a case where she was not supposed to be smoking where she was. I had to move to avoid her smoke, because she felt her right to pollute the air was more important than my right to breathe air without tobacco smoke in it. Do you agree that she was being rude?
    Yes i agree that she was being rude.

    However, the non-smokers' choice in my opinion ought to be the default, and smokers ought to be required to seek special permission, because the non-smokers' choice isn't poisoning the smokers.
    Here's something that happens a lot. In between driving trains i sit on a bench on the platform smoking a cigarette, which is both legal here and does not present negative health effects to the surrounding people (it is only legal on open-air platforms). Even so, i still choose to sit at an unoccupied bench. Then someone comes onto the platform, chooses to come sit right next to me (where i am visibly smoking) and starts complaining about the smoke. Do you agree that is being rude?

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Your right to swing a fist stops at my face.
    Very nice rhetoric, how is it relevant? Are you saying that boxing matches should be illegal because you could decide to go there and put your face between the contestants?

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I believe this sort of attitude helped get the laws passed here.
    So would you support legislation outlawing dog shows? After all, right now, there are people that can't go to them because they have dog allergies, that are now being told that they maybe just shouldn't go to dog shows. That sort of attitude should help support the legislation, no?

    Besides, you're mixing up two different questions here.

    We'll just have to disagree on that.
    Then maybe you can present the argument in a rational fashion, by clearly stating the premises and the conclusion.
    Last edited by caveman1917; 2013-Nov-03 at 11:12 PM.

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Very nice rhetoric, how is it relevant? Are you saying that boxing matches should be illegal because you could decide to go there and put your face between the contestants?
    Will the bad analogies never cease? Punches do not spread. They hit one thing, then stop. They do not fill a room with haze or drift with the breeze.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,967
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    So would you support legislation outlawing dog shows? After all, right now, there are people that can't go to them because they have dog allergies, that are now being told that they maybe just shouldn't go to dog shows. That sort of attitude should help support the legislation, no?
    The point of a dog show is to see dogs. What event do you go to where the point is smoking? When I go to a restaurant, the point is eating.

    By smoking around other people, you make the decision that other people are going to smoke, too. It's that simple. You are choosing for other people. And in fact, smoke doesn't dissipate outside as much as people think it does. So if you're walking behind a smoker, you are walking in their smoke cloud and dosing yourself with toxins. Boxing matches? Both people chose to fight. Rock concerts? You chose to go to a loud venue. In most cases, your exposure to health dangers is your voluntary decision. In the case of smoking, someone else has chosen for you if you are not the one with the cigarette. The smoker is the one whose decision matters, and they have consistently felt that their addiction trumps, say, others' health problems.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    It is entirely possible to be a smoker without being inconsiderate of others. I was such a (pack-a-day) smoker. My grandmother was such a smoker. We would not smoke around those who didn't care to share, and stood downwind, literally and metaphorically, whenever possible. When not possible, we would make the choice to actually show some restraint and hold off on smoking for an hour.

    If you want to smoke, fine. But do not let your smoke harm others. I would go so far as to say you shouldn't even let your smoke inconvenience others.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If my mother went into a place (not just eateries but anyplace) where people were smoking, she usually left and went elsewhere. In circumstances where she could not, she would ask to be in the nonsmoking section. In places that did not have one, she would place herself as far from smokers as possible. Only in cases where someone lit up near enough that their smoke made her have trouble breathing, would she approach them.
    So it was almost never a problem?

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    So it was almost never a problem?
    On the contrary. It was a frequent problem that was potentially life-threatening. I'm sure she has not mentioned them all to me, as I wasn't at the event or in the room. Off the top of my head I can think of at least two dozen or so incidents where I was present to see. The majority of those she approached, chose to put their own pleasure ahead of another's health and did nothing to stop or move.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    The point of a dog show is to see dogs. What event do you go to where the point is smoking? When I go to a restaurant, the point is eating.
    And apparently the point for others is both eating and smoking.

    By smoking around other people, you make the decision that other people are going to smoke, too. It's that simple. You are choosing for other people. And in fact, smoke doesn't dissipate outside as much as people think it does. So if you're walking behind a smoker, you are walking in their smoke cloud and dosing yourself with toxins.
    Reference please?

    Boxing matches? Both people chose to fight. Rock concerts? You chose to go to a loud venue.
    Bars before the smoking ban was in place? You chose to go to a smokey venue.

    In most cases, your exposure to health dangers is your voluntary decision.
    Exactly.

    In the case of smoking, someone else has chosen for you if you are not the one with the cigarette.
    I am not the one with the volume control in my hand, does that not mean that someone else has chosen the volume of a rock concert for me?

    The smoker is the one whose decision matters, and they have consistently felt that their addiction trumps, say, others' health problems.
    Reference please?

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Let me offer you an analogy, Caveman. Suppose you have someone who every 20 minutes randomly throws a used hypodermic needle around a room? They don't hit everyone, and not everyone hit gets sick, and sometimes they even get hit by the blunt end for no damage at all, so the health risk is low, right?
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2013-Nov-04 at 12:14 AM. Reason: spelling
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    By smoking around other people, you make the decision that other people are going to smoke, too. It's that simple. You are choosing for other people. And in fact, smoke doesn't dissipate outside as much as people think it does. So if you're walking behind a smoker, you are walking in their smoke cloud and dosing yourself with toxins.
    Reference please?
    Are you saying that smoke does not spread in the air? That it does not get inhaled by others? That is definitely an extraordinary claim, it goes against observation, you will need to provide proof.

    Or are you claiming that cigarette smoke is non-toxic? Demonstrably false.

    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    The smoker is the one whose decision matters, and they have consistently felt that their addiction trumps, say, others' health problems
    Reference please?
    My own personal experience as a smoker. I have been that decision-maker. I chose the high road.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Let me offer you an analogy, Caveman. Suppose you have someone who every 20 minutes randomly throws a used hypodermic needle around a room? They don't hit everyone, and not everyone hit gets sick, and sometimes they even get hi by the blunt end for no damage at all, so the health risk is low, right?
    Sure. So there is a publically accessible room, where people engage in the custom of throwing hypodermic needles around. Such is clearly indicated to everyone, and everyone is free to enter or not by their choosing.

  22. #322
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Are you saying that smoke does not spread in the air? That it does not get inhaled by others? That is definitely an extraordinary claim, it goes against observation, you will need to provide proof.

    Or are you claiming that cigarette smoke is non-toxic? Demonstrably false.
    Oh please, i'm asking for a reference for the claim that walking on an open-air sidewalk where someone is smoking presents a health risk. If the claim is not that there is a health risk, but merely the simple fact that you will inhale certain particles that you can smell, then how is it different from trying to outlaw certain perfumes that you don't happen to like?
    Last edited by caveman1917; 2013-Nov-04 at 12:19 AM.

  23. #323
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    10,971
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Oh please, i'm asking for a reference for the claim that walking on an open-air sidewalk where someone is smoking presents a health risk. If the claim is not that there is a health risk, but merely the simple fact that you will inhale certain particles that you can smell, then how is it different from trying to outlaw certain perfumes that you don't happen to like?
    I've personally found that having someone else's smoke blow in my face, walking down the sidewalk, is WAY more common than smelling someone's perfume.

    (If I see someone smoking, I'll deliberately walk around them (i.e. wide berth) to avoid the smoke. I shouldn't have to.)
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Bentleys Gonna Sort You Out!

  24. #324
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    I've personally found that having someone else's smoke blow in my face, walking down the sidewalk, is WAY more common than smelling someone's perfume.
    So the health risk has nothing to do with it? It is merely about how common you smell something you do not like?

    (If I see someone smoking, I'll deliberately walk around them (i.e. wide berth) to avoid the smoke. I shouldn't have to.)
    You don't have to, you choose to.
    Last edited by caveman1917; 2013-Nov-04 at 12:29 AM.

  25. #325
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    10,971
    With or without the specific health risk from that level of 2nd hand smoke, I believe (no, don't ask for a reference, I won't bother) that society on the whole has moved to where cigarette smoke is consider a foul or offensive odour.

    That alone is reason to not have to smell it; even if it's really just subjective.


    (And yes, all the butts thrown around (it's estimated that there are millions of butts in Wellington Harbour http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7366...e-bins-to-toss http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2661136/ (general links)) add to my desire to see smokers be much more careful about where and how they exercise their "freedom" to smoke.)
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2013-Nov-04 at 12:45 AM.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Bentleys Gonna Sort You Out!

  26. #326
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Sure. So there is a publically accessible room, where people engage in the custom of throwing hypodermic needles around. Such is clearly indicated to everyone, and everyone is free to enter or not by their choosing.
    No, it is not noted on the sign outside or generally announced "needlers welcome!" It may or may not be a custom, nor would strangers have any reason to expect it to be occurring. It's just a guy who walks in, sits down and happens to fling needles.

    It might be a guy on a park bench, or in a bus stop rain shelter. Places where random strangers congregate by necessity.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  27. #327
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    With or without the specific health risk from that level of 2nd hand smoke, I believe (no, don't ask for a reference, I won't bother) that society on the whole has moved to where cigarette smoke is consider a foul or offensive odour.
    If society on the whole considers cigarette smoke to have an offensive odour, then why is it so common for you to encounter it?

    ETA: even so, if i happen to like a perfume that a majority of society considers offensive, does that mean that it should be illegal for me to wear it on the street?

    (And yes, all the butts thrown around (it's estimated that there are millions of butts in Wellington Harbour http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7366...e-bins-to-toss http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2661136/ (general links)) add to my desire to see smokers be much more careful about where and how they exercise their "freedom" to smoke.)
    Should drinking in public be curtailed because people throw cans away?
    Last edited by caveman1917; 2013-Nov-04 at 12:56 AM.

  28. #328
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    No, it is not noted on the sign outside or generally announced "needlers welcome!"
    What if it is? Does your analogy still hold then? If not, would then not simply putting signs on restaurants saying "smoking happens here" solve the issue according to your analogy?

    It might be a guy on a park bench, or in a bus stop rain shelter.
    I thought you said it was in a room? Besides, if you're making the open-air health risk argument here, i'll ask you for the same reference.
    Last edited by caveman1917; 2013-Nov-04 at 12:54 AM.

  29. #329
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    So if it's not a practical solution for me to organize rock concerts that, in and of itself, means that others should turn down the volume of their concerts when i arrive?
    Again, false analogy. The purpose of concerts is music. Unless you are entering a place whose purpose is smoking, you should have no expectation of being allowed to smoke there.



    Should it be illegal for flatulent people to walk down the street as well?
    False analogy yet again. No one chooses to pull out a pack of farts and open them.






    [I]Here's something that happens a lot. In between driving trains i sit on a bench on the platform smoking a cigarette, which is both legal here and does not present negative health effects to the surrounding people (it is only legal on open-air platforms). Even so, i still choose to sit at an unoccupied bench. Then someone comes onto the platform, chooses to come sit right next to me (where i am visibly smoking) and starts complaining about the smoke. Do you agree that is being rude?[/QUOTE]

    I agree that in that specific, limited circumstance, the nonsmoker is being obnoxious. The reverse is (as I witnessed many times) equally obnoxious, with the added benefit of making my mother cough until she had tears running down her face even after she moved away. The two situations are thus unequal.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #330
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Again, false analogy. The purpose of concerts is music. Unless you are entering a place whose purpose is smoking, you should have no expectation of being allowed to smoke there.
    If the purpose of a restaurant wasn't having both a meal and a smoke afterwards, then why were people generally going there for that? Is not the most objective way to determine the "purpose" of a venue the observation of what people do there?

    False analogy yet again. No one chooses to pull out a pack of farts and open them.
    Fine, take the perfume analogy instead. The main point is the same.
    Last edited by caveman1917; 2013-Nov-04 at 01:02 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •