The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ignoring fact, logic, and expertise > Comments

Ignoring fact, logic, and expertise : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 9/12/2008

The lauding of celebrity activists reveals a society which is losing its perspective.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Although I am a reader, I had never heard of Richard Flanagan until I saw him on TV a month or so ago. I can’t remember what the programme was about – such was the impact it had on me – but the man came over as a very strange fellow who seemed to be at odds with everyone, including himself. Perhaps he is a big name in the backwaters of Tasmania; or with the “literati” and “intellectual elite”, of whom there are probably three in Tasmania.

The media does have “unhealthy preoccupation with celebrity”, as the author states. The most recent being last night’s news and current affairs on a woman who was, apparently, a runner of some sort who died of breast cancer. Poor woman. But there are thousands if not millions of women dying of the same disease who never get a mention.

Someone who is supposed to be a ‘celebrity’ breaks wind, and we all have to know about it.

And, the masses love it. They live their lives through these other people, because their lives are, they believe, so humdrum and unexciting.

Mark Poynter’s credentials are impressive; but he will have to get used to the idea that celebrity emptiness will win every time.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 9:52:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To me, the worst aspect of the pulp-mill debate is the uses to which it's products will be put.

I'm tired of hearing the old chestnuts of "progress", employment, wealth generation, value adding (there's a particularly slimy misnomer) and "saving" the poor old Tasmanian economy (whatever the fundamentalists deem that to be).

The fact is that the vast bulk of the paper products will be briefly used once, shredded and thrown into the rubbish.

I don't care how sweetly the plant runs, nor how proud you are of it's ability to digest whole forests and swallow torrents of water. The whole idea is an abomination from the get-go.

It is no more nor less than a fancy way of turning trees into unnecessary landfill.... and we are all going to do something about that, whether politicians, industrialists and financiers like it or not.... celebrity notwithstanding.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 12:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meanwhile much/most/all of the "expert" opinion that promotes all of these grand schemes is produced by public "relations" companies who business is the manufacture of "spin".

That is lies, lies, and more lies.

Always remember the golden rule, that money rules, and then follow the money trail.

Trouble-makers!

If it wasnt for the trouble-makers or those that said no, or we have had enough, we would long ago have had a fascist corporate state.

And white racist America too where brown skinned strange fruit would still be found on trees in the south. And certainly not a mixed race brown skinned President elect.

And the "communist USSR, and apartheid South Africa. And even British ruled North America. And of course the "divine right" of kings.

Which is also the primary reason that Obama was elected. The people have quite rightly had enough of the corporate lie machine.

In fact some argue that we already have such a corporate fascist state, especialy in the USA. And I would agree with them.

It is obvious that governments have very little say about what goes on and what does or does not happen.

All summed up in the title of a title of a book by David Korten:

When Corporations Rule the World.

Which is EXACTLY the way things are.

Big money and vested power interests rule OK.

All held in place (trance) by 24/7 wall to wall corporate propaganda/spin.
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 1:12:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would the author be so against celebrity activism if one had been espousing the virtues of logging old growth forests and the pulp mill.

Celebrity is irrelevant really, there will always be celebrities talking up some cause whether it is Flanagan and forests or Charlton Heston's gun totin' mentality.

Give people some credit to make up there own minds. I would think celebrity involvement only reinforces the mindsets of the true believers.

Logic dictates that there are limits to growth. Is it illogical to suggest that continuous unrestrained growth is unsustainable and forestry within that scenario is no exception.

The gunn's pulp mill has been fraught with illegal and unethical shenanigans from politicians and interested parties from the very beginning. Facts, logic and expertise have been ignored by gunns and politicians but big money talks regardless of the potential negative consequences to both the environment and with it the people of Tasmania.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 7:40:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see why loggers always whine and whine and bitch about the potential for the loss of their jobs.

Workers from all other parts of society have no job guarantees and regularly get laid off/fired. In many cases they have to uproot their home often to travel to find work, to different states. Farmers might go broke and have to sell their properties.

Why do loggers think they are so special and have such a huge sense of entitlement?
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 8:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I should firstly point out that my article was originally posted on the ABC Unleashed website on 24/11 and has since then had 430 comments. Probably the majority of these come from an opposing viewpoint (often very vehemently), although there was no shortage of supporting comments also.

A particular feature was that about 4 or 5 of those most aggrieved by the article posted 20 - 30 comments each, including one who posted 60 - 70 comments. Most of these simply just went off on a tangent and did not really address the article. Of the 5 comments on this site thus far, I would categorise 3 in that way already, with a fourth comment being partially like that.

In many ways those responses simply prove the point of the article that so many people with no actual knowledge of the topic have very, very strong opinions developed by exposure to a range of uninformed opinions, of which celebrity activists are a significant source.

The ABC Unleashed experience was that when challenged to provide evidence, or directed to government statistics and reports that show they are wrong, these angry respondents just went on spouting their 'indisputable truths' without skipping a beat. They simply had no interest in changing their views no matter how factually wrong they are.

One of the first five comments has said that celebrity views don't really matter as they only reinforce the mindset of the true believers. There is some truth in that, but the true believers (dark greens) are thought to make up only about 15% of the population, whilst about 50% tend to lean to the green view but are open to consider alternate views (light greens).

If they are making up their minds about a whole host of issues on the basis of celebrity activism in preference to government statistics and facts that are rarely aired in the media, than I would contend that our society has a problem.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 10:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, I'll address the article.

The first 25 pars are spent denigrating the motives of those who disagree with the author. The rest fails to make a case.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 7:48:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark I would think that most Greens would be light green as you say - not sure where the 25% comes from in reference to dark greens.

You would be aware that the Gunn's and logging issues as a whole have always attracted contributions from 'experts' from both sides of the debate. All we can do as humble members of the public who are fed various contradictory data is to look at the issue logically in combination with many other ideas.

All of us, including experts, derive our opinions influenced by how we view the world, what we believe is right, applying logic and reason and hopefully making judgements without hidden agendas.

I agree that timber is one of the best resources, it is renewable can be used in a number of ways all to the benefit of mankind. But benefits to mankind are not confined to goods and services. The continuing supply of goods and service will also depend on how we manage those resources. Being mindful of the benefits of biodiversity, conservation and by carefully managing plantation timber is to apply logic and commonsense.

The problem lies with the image that everything 'green' must be illogical and emotion-based and the province of nutters while everything to do with business is based on fact, logic and altruism for the public good (jobs, goods etc).

Is it not logical and commonsense to argue for balance. None of these issues can stand alone they have to be looked at within the whole context of sustainabiity and natural resource management.

Because of Greens we now know that large scale clearing of land is not sustainable and is damaging on many fronts - salinity, biodiversity, infertility. Many farmers have got on board with sustainable farming practices because it is logical and because there is evidence that it works.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 7:53:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's quite sick-making how climate change alarmists here believe in listening to the experts (scientists), but when it comes to forestry, they don't want to listen to this expert, but prefer to listen to greenies and othe ratbags.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 8:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timber is a fantastic resource, renewable and diverse uses. Properly managed plantations are definitely the way to go. Where I disagree with pulp mills is that they are not necessary. Paper can be made from many other faster growing plants than trees. A massive tree can be reduced to nothing but pulp is wasteful, tragic and has environmental side effects.

Please consider:

"The bark of the hemp-stalk contains bast fibers, among the Earth's longest natural soft fibers and rich in cellulose. Hemp stalk is not psychoactive. Hemp fiber is longer, stronger, more absorbent and more insulative than cotton fiber.

According to the Department of Energy [USA] the hydrocarbons in hemp can be processed into a wide range of biomass energy sources, from fuel pellets to liquid fuels and gas. Development of bio-fuels could significantly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

emp can be grown organically. Only eight, out of about one hundred known pests, cause problems, and hemp is most often grown without herbicides, fungicides or pesticides. Hemp is also a natural weed suppressor due to fast growth of the canopy.

Hemp produces more pulp per acre than timber on a sustainable basis, and can be used for every quality of paper. Hemp paper manufacturing can reduce wastewater contamination. Hemp's low lignin content reduces the need for acids used in pulping, and its creamy color lends itself to environmentally-friendly bleaching instead of harsh chlorine compounds. Less bleaching results in less dioxin and fewer chemical by-products.

Hemp fiber paper resists decomposition, and does not yellow with age when an acid-free process is used. Hemp paper more than 1,500 years old has been found. Hemp paper can also be recycled more times than wood-based paper.

Research is being done to use hemp in manufacturing biodegradable plastic products: plant-based cellophane, recycled plastic mixed with hemp for injection-molded products, and resins made from the oil, to name a very few examples. Over two million cars on the road today have hemp composite parts for door panels, dashboards, luggage racks, etc."

Therefore, why are wood pulp mills even being considered?
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 8:45:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo Fractelle!
Hemp should be the feedstock for all paper products and replace cotton for many fabrics. Certain companies knew this and acted...let us say within the Law but outside all morality.
Folks should study *why* hemp was renamed, demonised, banned then handed over to the crimminals (who have since increased potency tenfold and endangered kids world wide).
In short, it was done by corperations for profit and power.
On a personal note: I grew up in the country and had a local swimming hole silt up on us. Upstream all the native bush was trashed for pine plantations. The creek system, which used to contain crays and fish, became a series of stagnant pools.
I am a *huge* fan of rationality and science, but I know that given false assumptions and starting conditions you can deduce almost anything. The "science" of economics is an example: Not too0 many economists saw the current debarkle comming did they? I simply don't believe we are forresting sustainably because I fly over denuded hills and degraded rivers. I've seen nature around me dying for the last 20 years in Victoria. Farming is just as much to blame, but invoking Science without providing some data is not good enough.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 9:27:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr R. I thought he said he was a forester in the employ of the logging industry. Either way a scientific argument can be mounted to justify many things but in this case the punters know what is in their interests and what isn't.

Anyone who invokes the "intellectual elite" as their enemy won't garner a lot of support when what they really want is to trash the environment for profit. Some people see intrinsic value in the environment while others see $.

One day you'll work it out Mr R. We're past (well, not quite) treating the planet as a magic pudding and are looking to develop sustainable industries. If Gunns wants to chop a tree and pulp it they can bloody well grow it first.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 9:57:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't celebrity endorsement, by definition, about who is saying it, rather than what is being said. Isn't that why they are called on. If Tiger Woods tells me a certain golf ball is the best to use, I'm likely to consider his view, but if he is endorsing an aftershave, I know it's about something else entirely - lifestyle, identity, image. I would prefer to hear someone with education, experience and knowledge of forest management over Pierce Brosnan thank you - because I'm worth it!
Posted by fungochumley, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 12:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Poynter draws total attention to the breakdown of accountability, that has accompanied the breakdown of law and order since 1970. He decrys the unaccountability of Newspapers and Media Outlets, who print misleading and deceptive comments about an industry, and whip up sentiments in an electorate far removed from the actual events. It is quite clear he knows his facts, and if it were not for media bias, he and the industry he supports would be largely free from government interference.

The problems started in 1900, when s 116 was inserted into the Constitution to appease the Roman Catholics, who were at that time regarded as subversives. They were sufficient in number to frustrate efforts at Federation, and when a deal was done, were given equality under the law. Unfortunately, S 116 has been used as a licence to believe anything, and while many Roman Catholics have served Australia extremely well, their absence from the debate about justice, has been a disaster. Because most mainstream religions are always apologizing for involvement in politics, a counter stream of religious thought, worshipping animals and trees has become popular. Christianity is an immensely successful system of government. It teaches that man is made in God’s image. It teaches that all mankind are created equal, and that women are to be treasured. Rudd’s popularity just about equals the percentage of Christians in Australia

A tree never pays Child Support, or feeds a family. They grow and are a resource, and should be used for mankind’s benefit. After a time a forest stabilizes, and takes and gives carbon in equal amounts. In Nature, taking the mature trees allows the little ones to grow up. If Mark Poynter had an opportunity to make his case against a newspaper, and the publisher of misleading and deceptive conduct, as was the case before Judges became Gods, and had the right to have his case decided in the Christian way with a jury, the result would be most interesting. Further under the ICCPR he is entitled to a local jury, not a government Judge from a far away city.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 4:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to reply to Mark Poynters essay even though I realize I am wasting my time at the moment, when the lib/Lab governments are so firmly in control that it will be BAU even after the next election.
He says.
1 “regarded as among the best managed in the world.”
By who? I ask. Certainly not the population.

2 the government’s Australia State of the Forests Report, regards logging as insignificant.
A report commissioned by a government losing all climate change credibility as it becomes apparent that it has sold out, the big end of town.

3 “It has become politically incorrect to support native hardwood producti “
That is because it is an act of criminal folly

4 “ I have been likened to “the captain of the Titanic”.
Keep rearranging the deckchairs.

5 “ facts about forestry are readily accessible from government sources, described “twisted deceptions, cover-ups, hidden agreements between power brokers”.
See 2 above

6 “ close to 30 years of experience ”
A vested interest?

7 “ ignoring the most basic information, such as that 47 per cent of Tasmania’s native forests, including 79 per cent of its “old growth” forests, are contained in parks and reserves where wood production is excluded”.
Facts, statistics and damned lies?

Flanagan bashing is a good case of:”shoot the messenger, especially if you do not want to hear the truth he brings”.
8 “Former Tasmanian Premier, Paul Lennon, views were effectively discredited even before he spoke.” Need I say more?
9 “Given Australia is among the world’s top five consumers of wood and paper products, authors such as Flanagan, Courtenay, and Dapin; their views on forestry are incredibly ironic “ The needs could be met by Alternatives, Plantation timber and Hemp but Gunns would make less profit. Because they would have to pay a market price and a not a pittance.

10 “ In so far as public policy ist determined by popular opinion “.

If Public policy was determined by popular opinion there would be no clear felling of old growth fores
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 11 December 2008 1:03:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once upon a time, there were places that were an alternative to Parliament with all the power of Parliament to bind the Queen, where lies and falsehoods could be measured against evidence, and declarations made by a fair just and inpartial tribunal, established by law. In that Fairy Tale Kingdom, which was called the Commonwealth, before the establishment of the Church State, anyone, without discrimination, could call the Government to account. If a Green or a Dark Green,did not like a Government Decision, they could sue. Sir Joh Bjellke- Petersen stopped that over Fraser Island. He simply followed Robin Askin, who had already stopped it in NSW in 1970 over gambling and prostitution. When the Federal Court of Australia was created, it was made jury possible, but administratively impossible. If examined it has never been legally constituted.

It discriminates all the time between those who would come to "court". It has never had a civil jury, but does have some very uncivil Judges. Those uncivil Judges vet every political attempt to exercise basic civil rights.

If both sides of this debate, were given every opportunity to argue their respective points, and advise the Queen, to approve or not to approve, as was the right of everyone in the Fairytale Kingdom,called the Commonwealth, there would be no need to shout at each other. Michael Crichton, May God rest his soul, documented the process in "State of Fear", a Novel, set in the USA where Jury trials are as of right. His conclusion, Global Warming is arguable.

It should be mandatory reading. Instead of relying on popularity polls, a poll of electors, either 12 or 25 in a Grand or Petit jury, should be called together, at Commonwealth expense, and try the bastards. It depends on whose side you are which side you consider the Bastards. The democrats lost the plot, to keep the bastards honest, when they forgot about Ch III Constitution. Lets have a Fairytale Ending. Lets hope Kevin Rudd keeps his promises. He campaigned as a Christian. Let us hope he restores Camelot
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 11 December 2008 1:59:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We live in a NIMBY society. With increasing urbanisation and affluence people are becoming disconnected from the real world, from a connection to livestock, agriculture and marine and estuarine habitats. We want food products - meat, fish, and vegetables but feel comforted by the knowledge that no animals “suffered” in order that we might live. We use paper and wood products but we would prefer that our forests are unspoilt and pristine. It is this sort of mentality that has lead to the rise of enviro-cult activists. Their temple is the natural world and even though the faithful rarely attend “church” they feel safe and warm knowing that it is there, pristine and in tact. Richard Flanagan is a celebrity disciple of this church; he is what I would call a green “fundamentalist”.

Parallels can be drawn with other environmental issues such as whaling, duck and roo shooting. If the Japanese and can sustainably take a prescribed number of whales, and if recreational or professional shooters can sustainably take wild ducks and kangaroos, then who am I to object. But the environmental fundamentalists can’t countenance a single whale, duck or kangaroo being killed. He will cry “ANIMAL CRUELTY”. But the real world isn’t as warm and fuzzy as we might hope and a slaughtered stock animal is still dead at the end of the day. And if foresters can responsibly regulate a sustainable native forest timber industry from only a small portion of the nations forest estate, then who am I to object. But the hypocritical fundamentalists can’t countenance a single tree being cut. And here is a point that the fundamentalist never states explicitly. He campaigns against forestry on a hectare by hectare basis. First he saved The Otways, then the Wombat, soon the River Red Gum, next he will “save” Melbourne Catchment forests and East Gippsland – until the day comes when like WA there is NO native forest timber industry; and at each stage he tries to create the impression that he only wants a fair and equitable balance between conservation and logging.
Posted by Ben Cruachan, Thursday, 11 December 2008 5:43:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I predicted earlier, many respondents to this article would simply reinforce its message that those who are most opinionated about forestry matters have no real knowledge and refuse to even consider the facts.

That so many have simply gone off on a tangent about the Gunns pulpmill is a case in point. It has never really even been a native forestry issue simply because it was only planned to partially use native wood for its first few years until enough of the region's plantations came on-stream to fully meet its requirements. This native wood was going to be woodchipped and exported in any case, so the mill was never going to cause additional logging.

But of course, because this has been explained many times by Gunns and Forestry Tasmania who should actually know something, it is dismissed as the lies of vested interests.

Sarnian is probably the best example of what my article was describing. He/she is not even willing to believe an Australian government report 'because it has sold out to the big end of town' He/she has obviously never considered how public opinion is formed and its merits as a basis for public policy given that it often bears no resemblance to the reality.

I wonder if we'd be doing sensible things like wearing seatbelts or having random breath tests if public opinion was the measure used to determine road safety policy.

As Ben Cruachan has correctly observed, we have become a soft nation that wants it all without taking any responsibility for where it comes from.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 11 December 2008 7:42:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark, I empathise with your being vilified by arguing on the basis of evidence rather than emotion and disinformation, which I suffered for years in the Queensland Public Service. A classic case was the Australian Magnesium Smelter, which failed with losses of $400m, most of it from the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. In Queensland Treasury, I directed economic and financial analysis which demonstrated that the project could never be viable. This echoed other assessments made over the previous 25-30 years and by the preferred customer for the magnesium metal, Teksid. Departments backing the project were unable to refute our analysis or make a case. At one meeting, they fell back on calling us "ivory-tower economists." I pointed out that I had worked for the UK Central Electricty Generating Board, my economic modeller had worked for BHP Steel and my financial analyst had been for eight years a project analyst for CRA's copper smelting arm - highly relevant experience. Our opponents were career public servants, with no business or industry experience whatsoever.

But they prevailed, were praised and promoted, because their focus was on playing the please-the-minister career advancement game, while ours was on soundly-based policy in the public interest.

Of course, no Minister or public servant was ever held to account for the disastrous decision to back the smelter.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 11 December 2008 7:44:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that the Gunns pulp mill is not only about native forestry, it is also about contaminating the sea with a raft of noxious chemicals, the air with a similar brew, taking a huge amount of a dwindling water supply, costing the taxpayer a lot of money building and maintaining roads for the logs trucks, causing congestion and danger on the roads for other users, affecting the livelihoods of all the businesses that depend on tourism, agriculture, effect property prices of those unfortunates that live in the proximity, affecting the health of an unknown number of residents on the Tamar valley .
All this for a bigger profit for the shareholders of one company and a quite small amount of associated jobs and as a conduit to subsidise this same company by injecting taxpayers money into forestry Tasmania to bail it out at regular intervals.
The forest industry should and will survive but in a Vastly modified form. The Greens and all of the population are usually misquoted and accused of wanting to stop ALL forestry operations. This is just not true.
Selective logging even of exotic species providing it is for a realistic use. Building, boat building, furniture, even plywood and veneers is OK but not to convert into pulp or to ship millions of tons of good timber away for pulp.
The Gunns and Forestry Tasmania spin doctors do a good job of misinformation about This but the truth is there for anyone to find and it is seeping out into the public domain.
It could have been a smaller mill in a suitable place that did not impinge on the enviroment and used only plantation timber but the delusions of grandeur of one man has seen the end of that scenario.
Posted by sarnian, Friday, 12 December 2008 9:10:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Flanagan's original opinion piece was poorly researched and overly emotive. Before offering their unqualified support the likes of Maurie Schwartz, Geoffrey Cousins, Charles Wooley and Martin Denholm would do well to remember to think critically, never assume, always question and scrutinize, and to research.
It would appear that we need to introduce special classes on critical thinking into our educational system as this skill just doesn't seem to be naturally intuitive to the masses.
Posted by Ben Cruachan, Sunday, 14 December 2008 2:13:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy