The Retreat at Twin Lakes homeowners may be sued over Martin's Death by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Retreat at Twin Lakes homeowners may be sued over Martin's Death

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, April 23, 2012 06:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7742
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, April 20, 2012 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The 'stand your ground' is very alien to me. And feels wrong.

That makes no sense. Are you saying you'd never stand your ground?

Glad people like you were not at Gettysburg or the Alamo...or in pretty much any situation were somebody is willing to fight to take what you've got. Property, freedom, dignity...life. Shame.

I suggest a CCW class and a small handgun. Or a large handgun. Or a variety of handguns and a shotgun for home defense.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 20, 2012 2:36 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The 'stand your ground' is very alien to me. And feels wrong.

That makes no sense. Are you saying you'd never stand your ground?

Glad people like you were not at Gettysburg or the Alamo...or in pretty much any situation were somebody is willing to fight to take what you've got. Property, freedom, dignity...life. Shame.

I suggest a CCW class and a small handgun. Or a large handgun. Or a variety of handguns and a shotgun for home defense.

H

So you didn't understand my post about reasonable force....? Can't say I'd hire you as a lawyer, given your lack of capacity to comprehend basic information.

Reasonable force applies in day to day situations, not armed conflict, dearie. There is a difference where I live.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 20, 2012 4:28 PM

OONJERAH

I once read a historical novel about Australia, and probably only one. I don't
read a lot. Was it Under the Southern Cross by Deborah Alcock, that starts
with the penal colony and ends in modern times? First pub about the turn of
the 20th century. ... Well, nevermind what book it was.

There is a chapter (maybe more) set in that Australian gold rush. Of course,
people came from all over the world, even the USA which still had its California
gold rush going then. A lot of them were gathered at a huge camp.

The evenings were sociable, a bit of drinking & smoking, chatting, stories, and
just get acquainted stuff. Just as he'd be getting comfortable there, the newcomer
would suddenly hear the sound of shots, lots of gun shots.

"What's wrong? What's all the shooting?"

Someone would respond, "No worries. It's just the Americans. They like to shoot
their guns a lot."

Years ago, I read that and never forgot it. For if it was true, it is such a telling
observation of the American species.

Hollywood: Cowboys riding into town to celebrate are often shooting off their guns.
Possibly I grew up thinking this was the normal way for men to start a party if they
lived in semi-wild territories. Then to learn that the custom was NOT world wide?
WHAT did it mean?

. . . . .The worst and most frequent consequence of paranoia is that it's self-fulfilling.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 20, 2012 6:45 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you didn't understand my post about reasonable force....? Can't say I'd hire you as a lawyer, given your lack of capacity to comprehend basic information.

Reasonable force applies in day to day situations, not armed conflict, dearie. There is a difference where I live.

You said you did not understand stand your ground.

I said if somebody is willing to take what you've got: property, dignity, freedom, life...you don't have to let that happen.

That, my friend, is true no matter where you live. Maybe you choose to run away or surrender or die...but you can also choose to defy, resist, and defend. This law is a codification of that choice which is itself a fundamental human right.

I suggest a Sig 238, six shots, fits right in your pocket, youll love it.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 20, 2012 7:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by HERO:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you didn't understand my post about reasonable force....? Can't say I'd hire you as a lawyer, given your lack of capacity to comprehend basic information.

Reasonable force applies in day to day situations, not armed conflict, dearie. There is a difference where I live.

You said you did not understand stand your ground.

I said if somebody is willing to take what you've got: property, dignity, freedom, life...you don't have to let that happen.

That, my friend, is true no matter where you live. Maybe you choose to run away or surrender or die...but you can also choose to defy, resist, and defend. This law is a codification of that choice which is itself a fundamental human right.

I suggest a Sig 238, six shots, fits right in your pocket, youll love it.

H

So you DO have trouble comprehending?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 20, 2012 9:18 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

So you DO have trouble comprehending?

Yeah, and I must admit it's kind of an American thing.
We're bunch of cowboys.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 12:04 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you DO have trouble comprehending?

having trusted hot
air for thought he swings wildy
at the sound of wind

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 1:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The 'stand your ground' is very alien to me. And feels wrong.

That makes no sense. Are you saying you'd never stand your ground?

Glad people like you were not at Gettysburg or the Alamo...or in pretty much any situation were somebody is willing to fight to take what you've got. Property, freedom, dignity...life. Shame.

I suggest a CCW class and a small handgun. Or a large handgun. Or a variety of handguns and a shotgun for home defense.

H

Alamo might not be your best example; those who "stood their ground" were wiped out to the last man.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 1:56 AM

KWICKO

Also, under Rappy's rules, Zimmerman admitted he was wrong when he apologized to Trayvon's parents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 2:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Given neighborhood watch groups don't have to be part of the national group (and this one wasn't), nonetheless, specifically from the Sanford Police guidelines:
Quote:
Participants get on-going training in how to protect themselves and their property. Personal safety awareness, whether you are at home, in public, or in your vehicle, and knowing what “to do and not to do”
.....
What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency. (emphasis in article)
.....
10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department. (emphasis in article) http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf
There is no mention of neighborhood watch persons not carrying weapons, but he nonetheless violated the other noted tenants of the Sanford neighborhood-watch guidelines.

There are several versions of who initiated the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. I see you've chosen which one you believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 3:11 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No, Geezer (who obviously has as much understanding as Hero), I was presenting facts in a debate. The facts are not all out yet. I responded to what I think was Hero's really crazy statement about Martin being at fault for being in a gated community of which he was not a member, and explained about gated communities to Magons, who asked about them.

What I posted was also quite meaningful, as it showed clearly, by the guidelines of the SANFORD police department, that neighborhood watch is supposed to REPORT, not get involved.

Quote:
Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department

Given he was told not to follow Martin, Zimmerman obviously went against those guidelines. Also that virtually all other neighborhood-watch guidelines say not to DO anything at all, merely to report. Those are valid points, irregardless of your need to attempt to make it seem otherwise.

There is no "version" which says that Zimmerman did not take action in following Martin, he admits it and the dispatcher told him not to; as far as I know, neither of those facts is in any way in doubt.

As to the "stand your ground" law being alien to Magons, of course it is--and has NOTHING to do with lack of self-defense. It also has nothing to do with self-defense; it was a law written by ALEC at the behest of the NRA in order to sell more guns. We already have a perfectly legal self-defense law. That the existing law makes it difficult to prosecute or defend is proper; it SHOULD be hard for anyone to shoot anyone else without good reason. Many have gotten off by stating the stand-your-ground law without much question, as Zimmerman would have done if people hadn't made a fuss.

She fully understands self-defense; it is this law which is alien, and it is alien to many of us in THIS country as well. As she said, they don't have gated communities in Australia, so I imagine a lot of this is alien to her. Yes, Hero obviously has difficulty comprehending. He read your saying it was "alien" to you to mean that you didn't understand stand-your-ground, and extrapolated that to mean you didn't understand self-defense. Pretty obvious to the rest of us; to Australians, as well I'm sure as the British and many other countries, that law would naturally be alien.

And yes, we are DEFINITELY a cowboy mentality, and always have been. That might have faded more if it weren't for the power, money and lobbying ability of the NRA, but they've fought ANY hindrance to owning guns historically, to the point where semi-automatics can be owned by virtually anyone, responsible or not. If you start that debate, as you've seen here previously, it will become a heated discussion between those who want ALL guns legal, with no restrictions, and those who would like some sensible, moderate restrictions on gun ownership which might lower our death rate some--like the thirty-round clip, for example, which allows people to kill a whole bunch of others before they're stopped. They, of course, will say we want to "take away" their guns entirely, despite the facts, and when we argue for some restrictions, however small, they will wave "second amendment" and fight to the death. So don't get it started, please! Hell, I may already have gotten it started by just saying THAT.

Yes, we are definitely a cowboy mentality. Some places in the Middle East the do the same thing, shoot off guns to celebrate, protest, or for any reason. That's telling, to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 3:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
No, Geezer..., I was presenting facts in a debate. The facts are not all out yet.

Correct, and pretty much my point.

But you have decided the "facts", and that Zimmernam violated these rules you quoted,

Quote:
Participants get on-going training in how to protect themselves and their property. Personal safety awareness, whether you are at home, in public, or in your vehicle, and knowing what “to do and not to do”
.....
What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.
.....
10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.

by, "...get(ting) physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons.", and, "...tak(ing) any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest."

Not sure how following someone becomes purposely getting "physically involved", trying to "make an arrest", or "apprehending criminals" in your mind.

However, following someone suspisious might be called for if you "Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime."

But the real issue is that you have already decided. You took the videos at the police station as proof positive that Zimmerman wasn't injured, and now that a photo of his injuries has shown up you try to discredit it. "Oh, it was only on Good Moring America, for heaven's sake, and here's someone on a web comment saying it was photoshop."

You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. In that case, the best bet is to not condemn or exculpate anyone. I'm not holding my breath.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 7:29 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. In that case, the best bet is to not condemn or exculpate anyone. I'm not holding my breath.

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment. Let's say Martin was eating Skittles in a devious way, you know, the way gang-bangers do. So Zimmerman feels the need to follow him. Let's say Martin danced around Zimmerman's car in a threateningly sarcastic manner. Zimmerman feels this is the time to go on foot. Let's say Martin advanced toward Zimmerman in a menacing fashion. Zimmerman feels like sticking around.

Where in here do you see Zimmerman taking responsible action?

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 12:36 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Let's not. You have no more clue as to what happened than anyone else. Not surprisingly, that doesn't stop you from deciding what happened.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 1:02 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by GEEZER:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Let's not. You have no more clue as to what happened than anyone else.

Of course not. I have no history of dealing with violence in an urban or semi-urban setting. I have no formal training in physical confrontation. I have never been in an actual fight. I have never suffered injuries that caused blood loss in varying degrees from light (a few drops) to heavy (a few QUARTS). I have never actually fired a weapon.
My take on the possibilities in this case is obviously worthless.
Thank you.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 2:22 PM

OONJERAH

Quote Chrisisall: "My take on the possibilities in this case is obviously worthless."

I think Geezer wants to discuss only verified facts. Verified by him?

People who want to discuss possibilities -- or worse: their feelings! -- well, it could
be deemed inappropriate in an open forum where ppl often talk about everything.

ETA: Oo-ooo! Wait! The thread title contains the word, "may."
Does that mean possibilities and opinions may be entered here?

"Creepy Guy Stalks Youth."

"Homeowners may be sued."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 3:45 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I think Geezer wants to discuss only verified facts. Verified by him?

I'd like to head off the lynch mob. Apparently that's not a popular stand here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 4:35 PM

OONJERAH

I have an opinion about George Zimmerman based on his reported recent and
past behavior. My opinion could change in lieu of new information.

I am not waving a rope. I consider Trayvon Martin's death a senseless killing,
a tragedy. I cannot justify what Zimmerman did. But I don't want revenge on
him, except this: I want him to serve life in his own head. Hopefully, to be
healed of his foolishness.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 4:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I think Geezer wants to discuss only verified facts. Verified by him?

I'd like to head off the lynch mob. Apparently that's not a popular stand here.

You see, I find that statement quite ironic. Wasn't it the case that Zimmerman supporters did not want this matter to go to trial. In effect, they wanted 'lynch mob justice'. The murder of a young man would appear to be seen as justice in its own right.

The fact that this matter is going to trial, regardless of the speculation, is the way the law does and should work. A young man was murdered and a trial will determine whether it was in self defence or not.

The additional fact of material being released by the media outside of the trial which may prejudice any potential jury is actually quite an interesting factor, but I see this as a flaw in your legal processes. Regardless, this man should be brought to trial to account for his part in a loss of life.

That is the exact opposite of lynch mob mentality as far as I can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 21, 2012 5:50 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Once Martin The Juvenile Delinquit smashed Zimmerman The Mexican's bloody head on the concrete, that was DEADLY FORCE, and Zimmer was legally allowed to "escalate the violence" to meet Martin's deadly force with bullets in deadly force.

Game Over.

No Retreat laws don't matter, since retreat was not an option when getting you head smashed into concrete, WHICH CAN KILL YOU.

But Zimmy is effing up by saying "he's sorry" in court, rather than saying "I feared for my life." Every cop knows that line.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 22, 2012 6:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Absolutely, what Oonj and Magons have written.

Quote:
I have an opinion about George Zimmerman based on his reported recent and past behavior. My opinion could change in lieu of new information.

That is what has been happening here all along, with some exceptions...most of those exceptions are by people who have used the word "lynch mob", interestingly.

And Magons made a good point. In essence, the police not pursuing the matter, not charging Zimmerman so that the law can decide what is true or not, police TELLING potential witnesses who was at fault without any proven facts to support it, all those can be seen as a "lynch mob" of Whites quite willing to believe Zimmerman acted appropriately...in other words, a rush to judgment, FOLLOWED by a rush to judgment on the part of many Black people in America (who have experienced profiling and are accustomed to it), followed by, in the case of many, decisions on which side they believe. We here have opinions, but we are debating the facts as we know them thus far; I've yet to hear a single person absolutely decide Zimmerman should go to prison. But I've read assertions of "lynch mob" by those who have decided for themselvs that Zimmerman was acting appropriately, despite his having gone against the Sanford Police Department's specific guidelines on neighborhood watch, as well as the national guidelines.

'Not sure how following someone becomes purposely getting "physically involved". Of COURSE following Martin was against the guidelines to watch and report. Following someone is a physical action. On top of that, he was told NOT to follow him by the dispatcher. The dispatcher may have no authority per se, but he represents the authority of the police department, and Zimmerman ACKNOWLEDGED the advice, then did otherwise. Physically following a suspect can lead to the watch person getting into harm's way, which is why the advice was given no doubt. It's neighborhood WATCH, the guidelines say report, and he reported; his actions after that were against the guidelines of the Sanford Police Department, to whom he was expected to report issues, from both the guidelines and what he was told.

As to the video, I didn't see any injuries and he seemed fine, that was my opinion. If the subsequent photograph is valid, I will take it into account. But I still question it, given the fact it remains unreported elsewhere, and even ABC's website's front page doesn't mention it...you can only find it by clicking on news of the Martin case, and even then only mentioned in a story at the very bottom of the page entitled "George Zimmerman Tells Trayvon Martin's Parents 'I Am Sorry'", and only mentions the photo in two sentences. That seems very strange to me so I have QUESTIONED it, not dismissed it. I'm awaiting further reporting on the issue. Given the notoriety of this case, even if the photo was an exclusive, surely it would have been REPORTED ON by other news sources, whether they had the photo or not, yet NONE have, and ABC, given they have an "exclusive" has buried it--surely they'd be reporting it all over the place if they believe it was valid, it's a hell of an exclusive for any news agency in a case as much reported as this one.

Quote:
You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. In that case, the best bet is to not condemn or exculpate anyone. I'm not holding my breath.

That's absolutely true, and I haven't condemned or exculpated anyone, I've reported the facts I've learned and given my OPINION, but nowhere have I said I think Zimmerman belongs in prison. I'm following it because it interests me, and because I find it interesting to discuss. I've condemned no one, EXCEPT the police for what I strongly believe was inept handling of the case, and the fact that if there had been no outcry, I believe they would have just released Zimmerman (as they did) and ignored it from then on.

YOU, on the other hand, have accused us of being a "lynch mob", judged us, and condemned us, not on facts but on your own opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
nowhere have I said I think Zimmerman belongs in prison.

Oh, I don't think he belongs in prison. IN MY OPINION, he should be sentenced to be followed closely be an armed person when in public for the rest of his natural life.
See, that way, one day, when he's drunk, tired or just really fed up, he might snap & confront the guy in an angry manner forcing him to shoot.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2012 5:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Speaking of the unprecedented authority and abuses Homeowners Organizations and Associations can get up to, the Foster-Sunriver case is especially galling.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-become-stalker-in-
oregon.html

Quote:
In public meetings, Foster denounced the Service District as an unnecessary expense that consolidated the grip of the village’s insular ruling elite. He proposed abolishing the District and contracting with nearby La Pine for emergency services – an arrangement that would have saved Sunriver home owners a great deal of money and reined in the power of the SROA.

In reprisal, the SROA concocted a plot to silence the civic-minded businessman. This is not a matter of speculation: The key player in that conspiracy, former Sunriver Police Chief Michael Kennedy, has provided an admirably candid summary of that conspiracy in a March 8 letter to the Deschutes County Commission.

Kennedy wrote that letter to file a grievance with the Commission after being fired on February 16 in what he described as an act of retaliation by a corrupt and unaccountable municipal government whose official dealings are as opaque as the proceedings of the North Korean Politburo.

“The Sunriver Owners Association has pressured the Sunriver Police Department as well as me to perform unlawful and unethical acts … which we have refused,” wrote Kennedy. “It is my firm belief that my firing was a direct result of my refusal to act on their unethical requests.”

The conspiracy to railroad Bob Foster on “stalking” charges was prominent among those “unethical” acts to which Kennedy refers.

Also

Quote:
In those paragraphs, Kennedy made at least three critical admissions:

*The private SROA, in defiance of conflict-of-interest laws, controls a public taxing district and the police department – just as Bob Foster had predicted it would.

*The stalking case against Foster was instigated by the SROA, with the connivance of the police department; it had nothing to do with any criminal conduct on Foster’s part.

*The SROA and Service District were using funds extracted from Sunriver tax victims to finance its vendetta against Foster.

This kinda thing is all too common - and I have been keeping at least a loose eye on the phenom of the people of such places finally getting fed up and firing their police forces entire, Covington Texas did it, so did Oak Hill, Florida, as did Mount Sterling, Ohio...

Although *technically* under the law via MI Public Law 330 my duties official amount to private police force, I do not have, nor do I allow any of my people to have, law enforcement authority - or firearms for that matter, there's no bloody need for either around here to keep the peace, and in the vanishingly rare instance that there's an actual need for a LE or armed response, the local Sheriff (who's an ass, but some of his deputies ain't too bad) will send out the cavalry quite swiftly, since he knows damn well we don't bother unless there's true necessity, and us being here means he can put all his boys doin shit that makes him money...
Nobody is innocent - but really, the cool thing about Contracted Security is that they have to ANSWER to the people they protect, far more effectively and directly than the blue suit mafia does.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 23, 2012 6:23 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
There are several versions of who initiated the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. I see you've chosen which one you believe.

Unless there is some universe in which Martin was stalking Zimmerman, there really is only 1 version of where the confrontation "initiated".

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE