A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RSC back up!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 15th 09, 10:07 AM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Andrew MacPherson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 287
Default RSC back up!

(jeffareid) wrote:

> I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo
> qualifying run by David Coulthard made for some European
> TV station and one that had been available on several web
> sites for a few years before I mirrored it and posted the
> link at RSC:


I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be just as nervous
about such material. Just because something is 'in the public domain', as you
describe, does not mean it's legal.

As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on your
wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. Their forum, their
choices, their rules. In exchange for a fairly useful source of sim news I choose
to accept them. I appreciate why others would choose not to though.

Andrew McP
Ads
  #12  
Old June 15th 09, 10:30 AM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Byron Forbes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 212
Default RSC back up!

"Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message
...
> (jeffareid) wrote:
>
>> I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo
>> qualifying run by David Coulthard made for some European
>> TV station and one that had been available on several web
>> sites for a few years before I mirrored it and posted the
>> link at RSC:

>
> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be just as
> nervous
> about such material. Just because something is 'in the public domain', as
> you
> describe, does not mean it's legal.
>
> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on
> your
> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. Their forum,
> their
> choices, their rules. In exchange for a fairly useful source of sim news I
> choose
> to accept them. I appreciate why others would choose not to though.
>
> Andrew McP


I'd say that RSC is hopelessly gutless in that instance. If the rights
owner of that content points out that there stuff is being made public via
your site and request that you cease allowing it to be then THAT should be
the end of it THERE.

Is RSC used by undergrad lawyers for practice or something is it? I cant
imagine ****ing around with all that.

  #13  
Old June 15th 09, 01:48 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
jeffareid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default RSC back up!

> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be
> just as nervous about such material.


It's never been a problem for youtube, and youtube handles this
in a private manner, doesn't publicly humiliate or otherwise
punish its member. Youtube does a much better job of balancing
due diligence by balancing the rights of it's members and copyright
claim owners. RSC feels the need to publicly lable what it
deems as offenders (even when no actual offense has occurred) with
it's yellow and red card infraction system.

> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on your
> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked.


Which I would have done immediately on being told they were concerned,
but they already removed it, but that wasn't enough for them. They felt they
needed to punish me as well by having a yelow card avatar added to every post
I had ever made at RSC (hundreds of these at the time, going back for years),
not even just the offending post (which also would be bad). I got several
pms and emails asking why I got the forum equivalent of a "scarlet
letter" added to every one of my posts, since all but one of them were
non-offending, even in RSC's viewpoint, the intent was to label me
as a violator instead of the individual post. The people that pm'ed me
were puzzled since all but one of the tagged posts were not the perceived
issue by RSC moderators.

> I appreciate why others would choose not to though.


It's the concept of the publicly punishing a member by adding the yellow
or red car flag as avatars to every post made by a member as opposed to
just the offending post or handled privately via pm's or emails the
way the rest of the world deals with this, combined with their attitude
of guilty until proven innocent, and their own determination of
copyright violation without receiving any actual claims.

Going back to youtube as an example, the people running youtube appear
to be much more informed these situations and handle these issues
in a much different way, and is a good example how such issues should
be handled, and in such a manner that youtube meets the legal
requirements for due diligence while at the same time not abusing
it's members.

Youtube does not preemptively remove videos, except as noted below.

Youtube does minimal or no screening of videos, relying on their
viewers to report any issues with their videos. Posted videos remain
on youtube unless a copyright infringement claim. However the video
remains, and the poster is asked via private communication to either
remove the video or to respond why the poster doesn't feel the video
is infringing. If the poster doesn't respond within a reaonsable time
the video is removed. If the poster does respond, then youtube
will go back to the infrigment claimer to ask for some evidience that
they actually own the copyright. This policy satifies the legal
reqirement for due diligence as determined by prior court cases.

A violation of the copyright policy at youtube counts as a "strike"
against the poster, but this is done privately, unlike the public
infraction system at RSC. 3 strikes and the account can be removed,
depending on the circumstance, but there is no "perma-ban" and the
poster can create a new account.

If a specific infringing video becomes a problem, then youtube will
pre-emptively remove videos based on catch phrases in the video
description, as specified by the copyright owner. Sometimes this
gets abused as Viacom, made such a pre-emptive claims against
all videos with the terms "Underworld" "Trailer" (from a tomb
raider game), even though they only have rights to one of the
four versions.

If a video is removed, the explanation is that the video was remove
for "copyright claim". Youtube avoid defamation issues by not
using the term "copy infringment", as only a court judgement
could make this call. Youtube does not label it's members as
violators to the rest of the public.

RSC on the other hand, will issue an public infraction to a member
for posting a video that they feel to be potentiallly infringing
without ever receving any actual claims of infrigment from a
supposed copyright owner. Then they punsish the victimized member
by attaching a yellow or red avatar to every post ever made by
the victim, not just the offending post.

Imagine the reaction from youtube members if every video posted
by the member included a yellow or red violator status attached
to every video for an alledged perceived violation in one of
those videos (now removed) even though no actual infringment
claim had been made.

One reason this isn't done is because of defamation of character
laws. It's not legal to make negative accusations against others
without susbstatial proof, and there's still the risk of a lawsuit
where the proof of the accusation is required. The burden of proof
in defamation (libel if written, slander if spoken), is on the
person or company making the accusation, yet RSC was routinely
doaling out public infraction avators (the forum equivalent
of a scarlet letter) without any semblance of proof.

I find RSC's public infraction system unacceptable, and my lawyer
friend states, it's violated defamation laws, especially when
the policy is to apply infractions when there is no evidence
(no infringment claim) that any infraction actually occurred.

Although the public infraction system is now noted in the rules,
it wasn't at the time I joined RSC, so essentially RSC violated
my member agreement at the time. In spite of the fact that
RSC now notes the public infraction system, they could be held
liable for a defamation lawsuit if they ever applied an infraction
without substantial proof of the infraction. They should also
suggest that members not use their real names because of the
public infraction system.




  #14  
Old June 15th 09, 07:08 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
jeffareid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default RSC back up!

>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then?

> That's the sort of thing only a **** would do.


So does this mean you'll be making non serious complaints
about staff?



  #15  
Old June 15th 09, 10:16 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
David Fisher's Left Testicle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default RSC back up!


"jeffareid" > wrote in message
...
>>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then?

>
>> That's the sort of thing only a **** would do.

>
> So does this mean you'll be making non serious complaints
> about staff?
>

You really are a crybaby sometimes. So they gave little you a yellow flag,
big deal! Get over it.

  #16  
Old June 16th 09, 10:31 AM posted to rec.autos.simulators
hoover
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default RSC back up!

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:24 +0100 (BST), Andrew MacPherson wrote:

> there. I remain convinced that newsgroups are the best way to exchange
> information... I can't help it if 99.927%* of the rest of the planet prefer clunky
> forums with no form of OLR to access them smoothly. :->
>


hear hear! Usenet has no single point of failure and no pesky mods to
shut you up if say something politically incorrect. Never mind RAS is
way past its glory days.. ;-)

Uwe
  #17  
Old June 16th 09, 06:27 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
Alan Bernardo[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default RSC back up!


"Byron Forbes" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (jeffareid) wrote:
>>
>>> I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo
>>> qualifying run by David Coulthard made for some European
>>> TV station and one that had been available on several web
>>> sites for a few years before I mirrored it and posted the
>>> link at RSC:

>>
>> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be just
>> as nervous
>> about such material. Just because something is 'in the public domain', as
>> you
>> describe, does not mean it's legal.
>>
>> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on
>> your
>> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. Their
>> forum, their
>> choices, their rules. In exchange for a fairly useful source of sim news
>> I choose
>> to accept them. I appreciate why others would choose not to though.
>>
>> Andrew McP

>
> I'd say that RSC is hopelessly gutless in that instance. If the rights
> owner of that content points out that there stuff is being made public via
> your site and request that you cease allowing it to be then THAT should be
> the end of it THERE.
>
> Is RSC used by undergrad lawyers for practice or something is it? I
> cant imagine ****ing around with all that.


I think there is little doubt that because RSC needs to be so legal (the
motivating factory, IMHO, being that they want to SEEM important), they are
going to run into legal issues. What I mean to say is that because of RSC's
pretentiousness, others are going to go out of their way to force lawsuits.

I also predict, in the not-to-distant-future, that RSC will start charging
for some of its services.

I've written the site off, there being plenty of other forums for good race
sim talk.


Alan


  #18  
Old June 16th 09, 11:21 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
PlowBoy,[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default RSC back up!

My only argument Jeff is: Google has thousands of employees that can clean
up youtube, the site generates revenue, if/when there is an issue someone
gets paid to fix or gets fired. I bet that is Not so on RSC, sure some
revenues probably but not full time people running the ****. if they asked
you to remove and you didn't, then I want to seemingly say, bad on you to
them. I mean least thing I want if I setup a website is to get suited
because some dork posts stuff they didn't know would get everyone in
trouble, and we have to nicely say dork, even though the person might have
known better they claim they didn't, but has no bearing when suits are
started...

Now if I setup one that is profit-motivated, then yeah I could see hiring
people to run that aspect/**** cleanup cover yer ass monitors etc.
Everyone seems to think Internet = Free. It is NOT. you pay for access and
I pay to host websites. I may not charge you directly for what you see, but
I cant have a website if I don't make enough to pay for it, directly or
indirectly... that is the bottom line. If I get lawsuits going, damn sure
the website is probably going to die 1st because it doesn't generate a
single dollar directly unless it is a shopping cart one. I know, that isn't
how Government does it, but that is how I'd have to do it.


"jeffareid" > wrote in message
...
>> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be
>> just as nervous about such material.

>
> It's never been a problem for youtube, and youtube handles this
> in a private manner, doesn't publicly humiliate or otherwise
> punish its member. Youtube does a much better job of balancing
> due diligence by balancing the rights of it's members and copyright
> claim owners. RSC feels the need to publicly lable what it
> deems as offenders (even when no actual offense has occurred) with
> it's yellow and red card infraction system.
>
>> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on
>> your
>> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked.

>
> Which I would have done immediately on being told they were concerned,
> but they already removed it, but that wasn't enough for them. They felt
> they
> needed to punish me as well by having a yelow card avatar added to every
> post
> I had ever made at RSC (hundreds of these at the time, going back for
> years),
> not even just the offending post (which also would be bad). I got several
> pms and emails asking why I got the forum equivalent of a "scarlet
> letter" added to every one of my posts, since all but one of them were
> non-offending, even in RSC's viewpoint, the intent was to label me
> as a violator instead of the individual post. The people that pm'ed me
> were puzzled since all but one of the tagged posts were not the perceived
> issue by RSC moderators.
>
>> I appreciate why others would choose not to though.

>
> It's the concept of the publicly punishing a member by adding the yellow
> or red car flag as avatars to every post made by a member as opposed to
> just the offending post or handled privately via pm's or emails the
> way the rest of the world deals with this, combined with their attitude
> of guilty until proven innocent, and their own determination of
> copyright violation without receiving any actual claims.
>
> Going back to youtube as an example, the people running youtube appear
> to be much more informed these situations and handle these issues
> in a much different way, and is a good example how such issues should
> be handled, and in such a manner that youtube meets the legal
> requirements for due diligence while at the same time not abusing
> it's members.
>
> Youtube does not preemptively remove videos, except as noted below.
>
> Youtube does minimal or no screening of videos, relying on their
> viewers to report any issues with their videos. Posted videos remain
> on youtube unless a copyright infringement claim. However the video
> remains, and the poster is asked via private communication to either
> remove the video or to respond why the poster doesn't feel the video
> is infringing. If the poster doesn't respond within a reaonsable time
> the video is removed. If the poster does respond, then youtube
> will go back to the infrigment claimer to ask for some evidience that
> they actually own the copyright. This policy satifies the legal
> reqirement for due diligence as determined by prior court cases.
>
> A violation of the copyright policy at youtube counts as a "strike"
> against the poster, but this is done privately, unlike the public
> infraction system at RSC. 3 strikes and the account can be removed,
> depending on the circumstance, but there is no "perma-ban" and the
> poster can create a new account.
>
> If a specific infringing video becomes a problem, then youtube will
> pre-emptively remove videos based on catch phrases in the video
> description, as specified by the copyright owner. Sometimes this
> gets abused as Viacom, made such a pre-emptive claims against
> all videos with the terms "Underworld" "Trailer" (from a tomb
> raider game), even though they only have rights to one of the
> four versions.
>
> If a video is removed, the explanation is that the video was remove
> for "copyright claim". Youtube avoid defamation issues by not
> using the term "copy infringment", as only a court judgement
> could make this call. Youtube does not label it's members as
> violators to the rest of the public.
>
> RSC on the other hand, will issue an public infraction to a member
> for posting a video that they feel to be potentiallly infringing
> without ever receving any actual claims of infrigment from a
> supposed copyright owner. Then they punsish the victimized member
> by attaching a yellow or red avatar to every post ever made by
> the victim, not just the offending post.
>
> Imagine the reaction from youtube members if every video posted
> by the member included a yellow or red violator status attached
> to every video for an alledged perceived violation in one of
> those videos (now removed) even though no actual infringment
> claim had been made.
>
> One reason this isn't done is because of defamation of character
> laws. It's not legal to make negative accusations against others
> without susbstatial proof, and there's still the risk of a lawsuit
> where the proof of the accusation is required. The burden of proof
> in defamation (libel if written, slander if spoken), is on the
> person or company making the accusation, yet RSC was routinely
> doaling out public infraction avators (the forum equivalent
> of a scarlet letter) without any semblance of proof.
>
> I find RSC's public infraction system unacceptable, and my lawyer
> friend states, it's violated defamation laws, especially when
> the policy is to apply infractions when there is no evidence
> (no infringment claim) that any infraction actually occurred.
>
> Although the public infraction system is now noted in the rules,
> it wasn't at the time I joined RSC, so essentially RSC violated
> my member agreement at the time. In spite of the fact that
> RSC now notes the public infraction system, they could be held
> liable for a defamation lawsuit if they ever applied an infraction
> without substantial proof of the infraction. They should also
> suggest that members not use their real names because of the
> public infraction system.
>
>
>
>



  #19  
Old June 16th 09, 11:23 PM posted to rec.autos.simulators
PlowBoy,[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default RSC back up!

RAS/usnet is near DEATH. AT&T to stop access to ALL usenet, that is a
pretty big group of people.

Crickets...

"hoover" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:24 +0100 (BST), Andrew MacPherson wrote:
>
>> there. I remain convinced that newsgroups are the best way to exchange
>> information... I can't help it if 99.927%* of the rest of the planet
>> prefer clunky
>> forums with no form of OLR to access them smoothly. :->
>>

>
> hear hear! Usenet has no single point of failure and no pesky mods to
> shut you up if say something politically incorrect. Never mind RAS is
> way past its glory days.. ;-)
>
> Uwe



  #20  
Old June 17th 09, 08:34 AM posted to rec.autos.simulators
jeffareid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default RSC back up!

> My only argument Jeff is: Google has thousands of employees that can clean up youtube, the site generates revenue,
> if/when there is an issue someone gets paid to fix or gets fired.


The number of submissions is too large for all them to get monitored, so
youtube has to rely on feedback from other users, or to rely on key
phrases in the titles or descriptions of the submissions, as suggested
via claims from prior infringments.

> RSC ... if they asked you to remove and you didn't, then I want to
> seemingly say, bad on you to them.


That's not what happened. If they had asked, I would have removed the
video. Instead, they removed the video themselves, added the yellow violator
avatar to all my posts, and then informed me about this after the
fact. I was never given a chance to respond beforehand, and after I
responded that I was fairly certain that the video wasn't an issue as
it had been on other web sites for several years, their response is
that my violator tag would remain until they got a personal letter
from Bernie, the owner of F1 racing, which obviously wasn't going
to happen, and that a letter from one of the other web sites
stating that no infringment claims were being made for that video
wouldn't be sufficient, only a letter from Bernie.

> I mean least thing I want if I setup a website is to get suited because some dork posts stuff they didn't know would
> get everyone in trouble


That wasn't the case here. Someone at RSC decided for themselves
that the video was copyright infringment, not the owner of the
copyright. RSC never received a complaint about that video or
similar videos, refused to accept a letter from other web sites
stating they had persmission to host the video in question, ...

This is my issue with RSC. I did not violate any rules, yet they
falsely and publicly declared me to be a violator, and refused
to accept reasonable proof that I was innocent of any claim
of violation.







, and we have to nicely say dork, even though the person might have
> known better they claim they didn't, but has no bearing when suits are started...
>
> Now if I setup one that is profit-motivated, then yeah I could see hiring people to run that aspect/**** cleanup cover
> yer ass monitors etc.
> Everyone seems to think Internet = Free. It is NOT. you pay for access and I pay to host websites. I may not charge
> you directly for what you see, but I cant have a website if I don't make enough to pay for it, directly or
> indirectly... that is the bottom line. If I get lawsuits going, damn sure the website is probably going to die 1st
> because it doesn't generate a single dollar directly unless it is a shopping cart one. I know, that isn't how
> Government does it, but that is how I'd have to do it.
>
>
> "jeffareid" > wrote in message ...
>>> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be
>>> just as nervous about such material.

>>
>> It's never been a problem for youtube, and youtube handles this
>> in a private manner, doesn't publicly humiliate or otherwise
>> punish its member. Youtube does a much better job of balancing
>> due diligence by balancing the rights of it's members and copyright
>> claim owners. RSC feels the need to publicly lable what it
>> deems as offenders (even when no actual offense has occurred) with
>> it's yellow and red card infraction system.
>>
>>> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on your
>>> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked.

>>
>> Which I would have done immediately on being told they were concerned,
>> but they already removed it, but that wasn't enough for them. They felt they
>> needed to punish me as well by having a yelow card avatar added to every post
>> I had ever made at RSC (hundreds of these at the time, going back for years),
>> not even just the offending post (which also would be bad). I got several
>> pms and emails asking why I got the forum equivalent of a "scarlet
>> letter" added to every one of my posts, since all but one of them were
>> non-offending, even in RSC's viewpoint, the intent was to label me
>> as a violator instead of the individual post. The people that pm'ed me
>> were puzzled since all but one of the tagged posts were not the perceived
>> issue by RSC moderators.
>>
>>> I appreciate why others would choose not to though.

>>
>> It's the concept of the publicly punishing a member by adding the yellow
>> or red car flag as avatars to every post made by a member as opposed to
>> just the offending post or handled privately via pm's or emails the
>> way the rest of the world deals with this, combined with their attitude
>> of guilty until proven innocent, and their own determination of
>> copyright violation without receiving any actual claims.
>>
>> Going back to youtube as an example, the people running youtube appear
>> to be much more informed these situations and handle these issues
>> in a much different way, and is a good example how such issues should
>> be handled, and in such a manner that youtube meets the legal
>> requirements for due diligence while at the same time not abusing
>> it's members.
>>
>> Youtube does not preemptively remove videos, except as noted below.
>>
>> Youtube does minimal or no screening of videos, relying on their
>> viewers to report any issues with their videos. Posted videos remain
>> on youtube unless a copyright infringement claim. However the video
>> remains, and the poster is asked via private communication to either
>> remove the video or to respond why the poster doesn't feel the video
>> is infringing. If the poster doesn't respond within a reaonsable time
>> the video is removed. If the poster does respond, then youtube
>> will go back to the infrigment claimer to ask for some evidience that
>> they actually own the copyright. This policy satifies the legal
>> reqirement for due diligence as determined by prior court cases.
>>
>> A violation of the copyright policy at youtube counts as a "strike"
>> against the poster, but this is done privately, unlike the public
>> infraction system at RSC. 3 strikes and the account can be removed,
>> depending on the circumstance, but there is no "perma-ban" and the
>> poster can create a new account.
>>
>> If a specific infringing video becomes a problem, then youtube will
>> pre-emptively remove videos based on catch phrases in the video
>> description, as specified by the copyright owner. Sometimes this
>> gets abused as Viacom, made such a pre-emptive claims against
>> all videos with the terms "Underworld" "Trailer" (from a tomb
>> raider game), even though they only have rights to one of the
>> four versions.
>>
>> If a video is removed, the explanation is that the video was remove
>> for "copyright claim". Youtube avoid defamation issues by not
>> using the term "copy infringment", as only a court judgement
>> could make this call. Youtube does not label it's members as
>> violators to the rest of the public.
>>
>> RSC on the other hand, will issue an public infraction to a member
>> for posting a video that they feel to be potentiallly infringing
>> without ever receving any actual claims of infrigment from a
>> supposed copyright owner. Then they punsish the victimized member
>> by attaching a yellow or red avatar to every post ever made by
>> the victim, not just the offending post.
>>
>> Imagine the reaction from youtube members if every video posted
>> by the member included a yellow or red violator status attached
>> to every video for an alledged perceived violation in one of
>> those videos (now removed) even though no actual infringment
>> claim had been made.
>>
>> One reason this isn't done is because of defamation of character
>> laws. It's not legal to make negative accusations against others
>> without susbstatial proof, and there's still the risk of a lawsuit
>> where the proof of the accusation is required. The burden of proof
>> in defamation (libel if written, slander if spoken), is on the
>> person or company making the accusation, yet RSC was routinely
>> doaling out public infraction avators (the forum equivalent
>> of a scarlet letter) without any semblance of proof.
>>
>> I find RSC's public infraction system unacceptable, and my lawyer
>> friend states, it's violated defamation laws, especially when
>> the policy is to apply infractions when there is no evidence
>> (no infringment claim) that any infraction actually occurred.
>>
>> Although the public infraction system is now noted in the rules,
>> it wasn't at the time I joined RSC, so essentially RSC violated
>> my member agreement at the time. In spite of the fact that
>> RSC now notes the public infraction system, they could be held
>> liable for a defamation lawsuit if they ever applied an infraction
>> without substantial proof of the infraction. They should also
>> suggest that members not use their real names because of the
>> public infraction system.
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
>



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Back To Back GT vs V6 Test Drive....... Cobra Boy Ford Mustang 1 July 5th 06 04:01 AM
one more urban grocers in back of the outer navel were recommending in back of the long camp Cypriene Corvette 0 January 20th 05 01:43 PM
[GTRank] Back-to-Back function added Uwe Schürkamp Simulators 2 December 20th 04 11:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.