MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Charles Cohen is dead
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next [all]
Author Charles Cohen is dead
luchog
Soy Sos wrote:
Replying to MATSmile's comment:
I don't think that was a meaningless article at all.


Aside from a few minor quibbles, I found it rather insightful, and I tend to agree with most of what she said. (I also think that Manhattan was overrated.) But I've been through the "separate the art from the artist" argument many times in the recent past.
Nelson Baboon
captnapalm wrote:
luchog wrote:
RadioTelefonik wrote:

It was still his decision to act on those impulses. You can deal with those feelings from the comfort of your own bedroom, by yourself.


Well, no, that's the problem, the disinhibition effect that certain medications can produce means that they can't choose to control their behavour. That's why those behaviours are listed as potential side effects.


There's emerging science that indicates possibly none of us has free will at all.
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/05/08/biologist-robert-sapolsky-takes-h uman-behavior-free-will/


LOL - science cannot prove that we don't have free will at all, except by engaging in reductionism that makes the notion pretty meaningless, or by actually predicting the exact behavior of human beings. (Edit - these articles, written for 'lay folk' are generally pretty silly. For instance, on the surface, isn't the following statement self contradictory? "For me, the single most important question is how to construct a society that is just, safe, peaceful – all those good things – when people finally accept that there is no free will.")
Vsyevolod
luchog wrote:
...the disinhibition effect that certain medications can produce means that they can't choose to control their behavour. That's why those behaviours are listed as potential side effects.


Very well written Luchog, thanks for the sense of balance you bring to this discussion.

When first reading about Charles Cohen and the arrest and prosecution, I fell readily into the trap of wanting to blame him for something. Digging a little deeper brought me to the Wikipedia article about the side effects of these drugs. I am in no position to judge anyone, this just opened up possible alternate ways of looking at the picture. Luchog has done a great job of opening it up even more.

Thanks for that.

Stephen




.
rec.Koner
I separate music from artist. Music isn't guilty for sins of creator.

Though i'd say best works of Cohen were collabs or bands. Especially Straylight.
prototek
Whether he knew what he did was wrong or not, we as a society should not white wash, or gloss over something as serious as child sex abuse. Someone brought up how most abusers have been abused... Yes, there is a lot of facts to back that up but shifting the role of victim over to the perpetrator is simply counter-productive. Children are the future of this world and should be protected. IMO, Mr. Cohen died at a very convenient time. Heaven knows death seems like a wonderful option when you look at the alternative of living as a social pariah or what others would more colorfully call "scum of the earth".

Well, on the upside, that's one less kiddie-fiddler on the planet.
prototek
Stephen, thanks but I don't see how your comment adds balance.
If Mirapex had a side effect that makes one want to have sex with an underage partner then it would possible add "a little balance".
Let me get this straight... Are there really people out there that think just because Charles was feeling "hyper sexual" due to his meds that it makes it ok he agreed to have oral sex with a 14 y.o.? Why not find a partner who is legal? All the Mirapex thing does is establish it's possible he was feeling "hyper sexual". The medication has nothing to do with his predilection for under age boys.

Vsyevolod wrote:
From the Wikipedia page on Mirapex and related drugs:


Several unusual adverse effects of pramipexole (and related D3-preferring dopamine agonist medications such as ropinirole) may include compulsive gambling, punding, hypersexuality, and overeating, even in patients without any prior history of these behaviours.

...just to add a little balance...

Stephen
prototek
captnapalm wrote:
There's emerging science that indicates possibly none of us has free will at all.
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/05/08/biologist-robert-sapolsky-takes-h uman-behavior-free-will/


Ha! A fundamental truth that governments have been trying to stop the general populace from knowing for a long time now!

I read the article. The man is talking utter bosh. He says we have no free will but yet he doesn't give "reason 1" behind his preposterous statement. Just looks like another narcissistic scientist/scholar trying to make a name for himself by saying something ridiculous, hoping others will read it as new and innovative. As far as the psyche goes, there's really nothing new under the sun. What's funny is how it causes some of these guys to say some of the most hilarious things!
But yeah, free will... As long as one is not a slave, they have free will. When you decide what you're eating for breakfast you have exercised free will. To get this on topic; when you choose your sexual partner you're doing it too. Just saying.

- John
prototek
Nelson,
Brilliant! With critical thinking becoming a lost art, I delight when I come across a rare post like yours. Glad I wasn't the only one horrified by that charlatan's article. Can't say I'm surprised though... The way it's become so normal these days to not take or bear responsibility it was only a matter of time before someone said that we're powerless to even make our own decisions! Sheesh!

Nelson Baboon wrote:

LOL - science cannot prove that we don't have free will at all, except by engaging in reductionism that makes the notion pretty meaningless, or by actually predicting the exact behavior of human beings. (Edit - these articles, written for 'lay folk' are generally pretty silly. For instance, on the surface, isn't the following statement self contradictory? "For me, the single most important question is how to construct a society that is just, safe, peaceful – all those good things – when people finally accept that there is no free will.")
prototek
Oh and BTW, if I see another person mention Woody Allen or see another another article linked from here with his photo I'm going to go mad!

Here's a reality check about Woody... In the 1980s he was dating Mia Farrow who as you may or may not know adopted several children whilst married to the brilliant pianist/conductor/composer; Andre Previn in the 1970s.
Around 1989, Woody started to have "relations" (consensual) with one of Mia's daughters; Soon-Yi Previn. She was 19 at the time. A few years later, Allen married her and they have been together since. So would someone tell me... What's the big deal? The only thing he did that could be considered bad (from a moral perspective) was to begin the relationship while him and Mia were still technically together (although they were on the outs).

OK. I'm definitely done with this one. If anyone is compelled to discuss anything further better use my PM.[/i]
rec.Koner
This forum needs audo-add script which merge new post by same user with previous one if they are posted in quick succession.
wavecircle
prototek wrote:
Oh and BTW, if I see another person mention Woody Allen or see another another article linked from here with his photo I'm going to go mad!

Here's a reality check about Woody... In the 1980s he was dating Mia Farrow who as you may or may not know adopted several children whilst married to the brilliant pianist/conductor/composer; Andre Previn in the 1970s.
Around 1989, Woody started to have "relations" (consensual) with one of Mia's daughters; Soon-Yi Previn. She was 19 at the time. A few years later, Allen married her and they have been together since. So would someone tell me... What's the big deal? The only thing he did that could be considered bad (from a moral perspective) was to begin the relationship while him and Mia were still technically together (although they were on the outs).

OK. I'm definitely done with this one. If anyone is compelled to discuss anything further better use my PM.[/i]


Didn't Woody Allen raise the child as his own? I'd argue that would constitute long term grooming. Of course it is not quite a serious as child molestation but it's pretty dark behaviour.
slow_riot
One reason why i feel that it's relevant to mention that child molestation can be linked to similar trauma in the perp is that it fights the notion that frank discussion of this topic tarnishes the memory of the perp. Where in fact contemplating the full cycle of abuse might be the best way to honour their memory and increase the awareness society has for these crimes by navigating the middle ground between silence and hysteria. Merry Xmas!
Peake
I usually want to understand WHY someone has a glaring problem. As someone who has been through hopeless addiction and dual diagnosis mental illness and engaged in behaviours literally beyond my control (I'm still responsible for repairing anything that can be, however) I've learned sometimes there are Reasons and maybe people should stop a second and attempt to Understand instead of leaping to throwing rocks. People who don't understand they're the Jerry Springer audience. On the other hand, some destructive people simply are what they are...but differentiation is important.
legionhwp
I knew Charles for over 20 years and have stayed quiet on this “discussion”. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion of one’s actions and/or art and can even be as judgmental as they want if they think it’s a good idea to do so in public. However, that also includes me answering things like the following post:

prototek wrote:
“Are there really people out there that think just because Charles was feeling "hyper sexual" due to his meds that it makes it ok he agreed to have oral sex with a 14 y.o.?”


There are people who acknowledge he did NOT have oral sex with a 14 yo. These people include the police and the court. For all anyone knows he may never have. It could all have been some elaborate role play or otherwise. You may feel that’s improbable but reality is that with context it could be quantifiable reasonable doubt.

“Why not find a partner who is legal?”

He did. He placed an ad on CL in the adult personals section looking for an adult partner for adult things. The cop answered his adult ad for adult things and despite the emails no one can definitively prove what he would have done or said had he actually met an adult (or someone posing as an adult or 14yo). He was arrested for having placed an adult ad on and adult page and talking to an adult who claimed to be 14. He had no prior history of any crimes including sexually related ones.

“All the Mirapex thing does is establish it's possible he was feeling "hyper sexual". The medication has nothing to do with his predilection for under age boys.”

Again, there was no proof or evidence he HAD a predilection for underage boys. He pleaded no contest and his attorney explained why.

I’m not saying he didn’t show poor judgement but think about the actual reality of this: Police thought it a good idea to troll adult classifieds of men looking for adult partners on a public adult personals page under the pretense this would “catch” “criminals”. They didn’t answer or post adds on an underground site that traffics in underage escorts. They targeted adults looking for adults. And, of course in this case, gay men.

Had it gone to trial he had a case and could have fought it (others have). No one will ever know the outcome because his health and circumstances but I find it ignorant to take what actually happened and immediately conclude things like he had a predilection for or molested underage children.

Also, this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/entrapped-when-craigslist- predator-stings-go-too-far/

“Our analysis suggests the government should not be in the business of testing the will of law-abiding citizens with elaborate (if improbable) fantasies of sensuous teenagers desperate to engage in sexual acts with random middle-aged men," wrote the judge handling Aguirre's appeal.”
luchog
legionhwp wrote:
I knew Charles for over 20 years and have stayed quiet on this “discussion”. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion of one’s actions and/or art and can even be as judgmental as they want if they think it’s a good idea to do so in public. However, that also includes me answering things like the following post:


One thing commonly missing in discussions about this and related subjects, is exactly that sort of sanity and reason. Too much there is the rush to judgement without knowing all, or in some cases any, of the actual facts.

Thank you for bringing in facts and reason.

There has long been a problem with stereotyping homosexual men as sexual predators and child molesters; and a large number of these sorts of over-reaching "sting" operations are intent on proving that stereotype.
prototek
wavecircle wrote:

Didn't Woody Allen raise the child as his own?


Nope. Didn't even live in the same household. The media did their best (just like they did with Michael Jackson) to paint W.A. as a lowlife, paedophile. Unfortunately, the majority of the population are content to accept the "facts" that are presented by the media.
bwhittington
prototek wrote:
Here's a reality check about Woody...


Not sure how this crept up, but you should probably brush up on the allegations of Dylan Farrow before going to bat for Woody Allen. The part about still not being able to look at toy trains because her experience as a 7 year old leaves quite an impression.
prototek
That's a thoughtful post. I actually agree with a lot of the things you bring up. I've thought about this since I first posted and while my feelings about child sex abuse remain unchanged, I feel that Charles Cohen, despite what happened wasn't a sexual predator. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I can't help but think how he posted a completely legal ad in the "personals" on Craigslist (sorry, don't know what that section is called) only to get a reply from the police (posing as a 14 y.o.). I had a friend who was offered a stereo and it turned out the guy was an undercover cop. When my friend claimed entrapment, the policeman said he gave my friend a tip about it being stolen when he said to him, "boy, it's really hot out today". For those who don't know, "hot" is slang for stolen. So I know how the police can sometimes play dirty.
I'm just left wondering one thing... Some members here who knew Charles said he preferred young men. The gulf between that and a 14 year old is quite large. When he got the reply and saw the young age (14) I wonder why on earth he didn't put the breaks on?

So, I just wanted to say that my paedo-anger was misplaced in my original posts. I'm friends with someone who used to do a lot of work with victims of that stuff and it's a very easy topic (for me at least) to become emotional over.

On another note, has a cause of death been ascertained?

legionhwp wrote:
I knew Charles for over 20 years and have stayed quiet on this “discussion”. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion of one’s actions and/or art and can even be as judgmental as they want if they think it’s a good idea to do so in public. However, that also includes me answering things like the following post:

prototek wrote:
“Are there really people out there that think just because Charles was feeling "hyper sexual" due to his meds that it makes it ok he agreed to have oral sex with a 14 y.o.?”


There are people who acknowledge he did NOT have oral sex with a 14 yo. These people include the police and the court. For all anyone knows he may never have. It could all have been some elaborate role play or otherwise. You may feel that’s improbable but reality is that with context it could be quantifiable reasonable doubt.

“Why not find a partner who is legal?”

He did. He placed an ad on CL in the adult personals section looking for an adult partner for adult things. The cop answered his adult ad for adult things and despite the emails no one can definitively prove what he would have done or said had he actually met an adult (or someone posing as an adult or 14yo). He was arrested for having placed an adult ad on and adult page and talking to an adult who claimed to be 14. He had no prior history of any crimes including sexually related ones.

“All the Mirapex thing does is establish it's possible he was feeling "hyper sexual". The medication has nothing to do with his predilection for under age boys.”

Again, there was no proof or evidence he HAD a predilection for underage boys. He pleaded no contest and his attorney explained why.

I’m not saying he didn’t show poor judgement but think about the actual reality of this: Police thought it a good idea to troll adult classifieds of men looking for adult partners on a public adult personals page under the pretense this would “catch” “criminals”. They didn’t answer or post adds on an underground site that traffics in underage escorts. They targeted adults looking for adults. And, of course in this case, gay men.

Had it gone to trial he had a case and could have fought it (others have). No one will ever know the outcome because his health and circumstances but I find it ignorant to take what actually happened and immediately conclude things like he had a predilection for or molested underage children.

Also, this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/entrapped-when-craigslist- predator-stings-go-too-far/

“Our analysis suggests the government should not be in the business of testing the will of law-abiding citizens with elaborate (if improbable) fantasies of sensuous teenagers desperate to engage in sexual acts with random middle-aged men," wrote the judge handling Aguirre's appeal.”
Peake
prototek wrote:

I'm just left wondering one thing... Some members here who knew Charles said he preferred young men. The gulf between that and a 14 year old is quite large. When he got the reply and saw the young age (14) I wonder why on earth he didn't put the breaks on?


We'll never know, although drug side-effects are NOT to be underestimated. Listen to how many side-effects exist and are listed in the drug ads on US television. Suicidal thoughts and actions are a biggie. -Actions-. Some of these drugs cause people to engage in suicidal actions; some succeed in killing themselves and that's how they learn what side-effects exist for a drug and they're forced to list them as a danger. =You may kill yourself if you take this drug=. We're supposed to take that completely seriously because it's been empirically proven to occur for some using that drug. If the known side-effect of the drug Charles was on includes hyper-sexuality, compulsion may have been a factor, because compulsion is a known-side effect only varying in form. It's safe to hypothesize, lacking further information, that he did not engage in underage sex and was blind-sided by meds! It's a fucking tragedy either way. I hope anyone filled with behaviours they know are destructive, finds a safe expert to talk to and begin the process of finding health. If you have compulsions you know are going to harm others you have a responsibility to understand and treat them.

I believe exactly -because- this is a super hot-button topic that it -must- be responded to with scrutiny instead of kangaroo courts. Humans love to judge and to reject, not to think and provide healing.
luchog
prototek wrote:
So, I just wanted to say that my paedo-anger was misplaced in my original posts. I'm friends with someone who used to do a lot of work with victims of that stuff and it's a very easy topic (for me at least) to become emotional over.


As a victim of child sexual abuse, I can definitely understand the hot-button response, as that was my response for many years. But I also spent a couple years in the recent past involved with therapy groups, seeing the other side of that equation, so it's much harder for me to join the lynch mobs these days. Especially after seeing how many sexual abusers were themselves sexually abused as children.

Peake wrote:
prototek wrote:

I'm just left wondering one thing... Some members here who knew Charles said he preferred young men. The gulf between that and a 14 year old is quite large. When he got the reply and saw the young age (14) I wonder why on earth he didn't put the breaks on?


We'll never know, although drug side-effects are NOT to be underestimated. Listen to how many side-effects exist and are listed in the drug ads on US television. Suicidal thoughts and actions are a biggie.
(...)
I believe exactly -because- this is a super hot-button topic that it -must- be responded to with scrutiny instead of kangaroo courts. Humans love to judge and to reject, not to think and provide healing.


Yes, exactly. Not just medications, but certain mental illnesses as well. I've had several friends and acquaintances with degenerative bi-polar disorder, and related disorders, get into some seriously bad trouble because their medication simply quit working; one of whom is now living on the street due to being full-time delusional and incapable of functioning, and another who committed suicide at the culmination of a big blow-out sex-and-drugs binge.
cycad73
Granted, the sexual act did not actually take place.

Granted, the person who lured Charles into this (after initially rejecting the offer -- this is all in the transcript), was a 40-something cop, with a mind and manner of a ... 40-something cop. So you never know, if it actually was the 40-year old "presence", not the 14 year old boy, to which Charles was attracted.

Granted, these lures target only specific populations while other populations (Roy Moore) can abuse with impunity and no one cares and then there are even groups trying to defend it.

I get all this (I hope...)

Nonetheless, it's impossible to overestimate the pervasiveness or the damage done by child sexual abuse.. You have to catch the abuse before it happens. Once it happens it is already too late, it's not worth the risk. You can't have a society without somehow addressing this. This is why I'll never be convinced even in appreciation of the facts -- Charles was clearly in the wrong at some level.

Now what's not rational, what's not right on my part, I've had a very difficult time since the arrest listening to his music despite that it has deeply influenced me for almost 15 years, and the "idea" of it for longer -- sometime in the 90's I heard about him, at the time modular as a live instrument was unthinkable, it completely blew my mind... also in those years he absolutely forbade anyone to record him because performance *was* the work -- both (at the time) earth-shattering ideas

So to not listen, to let the incident color what he has done, this does great violence to an art that has so deeply impacted our own work. Nonetheless, victory is not so cheap -- we cannot simply proclaim the separation of art and artist and be done. That is rather an ideal -- what should be. But it takes tremendous effort because as much as we'd like to avoid it, we remain imprisoned in our own thoughts and feelings about the work. There is no work "in itself", never was. We know the work only through how it affects us. Just as the past conditions the present, the present flows into the past, it affects the past to the extent we can know it. Or -- there never really is anything but the present moment, a moment which creates both past and future.

To achieve the separation art/artist, we must question the source of the unacceptability that flows into the art -- which is nothing but the fear that we too may be capable of something monstrous. ("Something", it's never the thing being considered, it's always something else, how do you know you won't become a fascist, etc. It's always where one doesn't look). Rather than keep up a real moral vigilance, we offload the problem, we surround ourselves with nice, safe, beautiful things, we have some faith that art can save us, because this is so much easier than considering that we actually may be the problem. So by not even trying to achieve the separation -- not the cheap separation that is simply posited beforehand, but the real, hard-won separation where we can come to accept even tainted work we are in fact perpetuating a world where horrible crimes will continue to happen.

The fact that great people can do horrible things, means also that we can do horrible things, and this is why this process is so difficult. But we cannot avoid it, either by ignoring the art, or by excusing the crimes.
Peake
cycad, are you concluding that Charles was guilty of sexually abusing the under-age? Asking gently because you ask for a society where child sexual abuse can never again occur while simultaneously accusing someone for whom there are apparently no accusers and that is exactly the sort of act a judgemental society uses to harm the innocent and to push those who may actually have a proven problem from seeking help to work upon it for fear of this exact and worse judgement. The cycle can't be made to end without compassionate treatment of those suffering childhood trauma they do not wish to repeat upon others or those who have taboo compulsions or concepts they do not wish to act upon. AFAIK there are no known instances of Charles engaging in under-age sexual contact. Unless this is proven incorrect it might be a good idea to take as his baseline and truth.

"This is why I'll never be convinced even in appreciation of the facts"...you wrote. Well...is there any pain underlying this position.
cycad73
Peake wrote:
cycad, are you concluding that Charles was guilty of sexually abusing the under-age?


Absolutely NOT. All the facts establish there was no child, and that the person to whom he was responding after first saying NO, was a 40+ year old man, who communicated with the mind and manner of a 40 year old man. This much is clear from the transcript.

I am just saying I cannot completely accept what he did, that it troubles me, and that the fact there would be some consequences is justified.

This is consistent with the legal record, all charges except solicitation were dropped.

Quote:

Asking gently because you ask for a society where child sexual abuse can never again occur while simultaneously accusing someone for whom there are apparently no accusers and that is exactly the sort of act a judgemental society uses to harm the innocent and to push those who may actually have a proven problem from seeking help to work upon it for fear of this exact and worse judgement.


Well then maybe the solution is to get him help... just that I can't agree nothing should be done.

Quote:

The cycle can't be made to end without compassionate treatment of those suffering childhood trauma they do not wish to repeat upon others or those who have taboo compulsions or concepts they do not wish to act upon. AFAIK there are no known instances of Charles engaging in under-age sexual contact. Unless this is proven incorrect it might be a good idea to take as his baseline and truth.


Agreed. I take that as truth. "Taboo" is a funny word here, the problem is exploitation, specifically acts with those who cannot or do not consent (and certain relationships also eliminate consent even if both parties are adults) It goes to fundamental conditions under which one can have a society, not what a particular society thinks is "taboo". If there is mutual consent I couldn't care less...

Quote:

"This is why I'll never be convinced even in appreciation of the facts"...you wrote. Well...is there any pain underlying this position.


Tremendous pain, yes. This has actually affected me a lot over the past 2 years, as I explained i find it difficult to listen to his music now despite how important it has been. As I explained this is not a valid or rational position, because it just creates a false bubble in which I am never the problem ... but is nonetheless something I need/hope to work through. Unfortunately I'm not able to work through it by completely excusing what happened, I have to take the harder path and it is painful.
Peake
I hope you find peace about this.

I used the word "taboo" because as a childhood sexual abuse survivor myself, it's difficult to repeatedly type those words and stare at them. I still have sorrow to process and I'm not used to facing the old pain all day long as responding in this thread has brought about. I am against non-consensual acts and that absolutely includes abuse and exploitation of children. I very nearly died in a "freak accident" when I was in my early teens and I fully desired to leave the planet, fully. Have been destroying myself in various ways ever since. Thanks for your detailed reply.

Edit: I did NOT want to make this thread about me. I just wanted to say that even as someone who endured abuse I still look for facts instead of assuming or listening to gossip on such important subjects. Do Charles a favor and remember he didn't do anything.
Nelson Baboon
Well, i do think that it's important to mention that the "underage partner" was a police detective (or planted by the police - can't remember the details). It makes for a far more complex situation than you dismiss below - if he had never for instance done this before, but was lured by police entrapment in this case, is he essentially guilty of a 'thought crime'?

This is all one of these situations that I think, for the most part, is presented too simplistically by most people. I'm not 100% convinced that this drug can render someone not responsible at all for one's actions. But responsibility is something that we judge, not something that somehow inheres to the cells or the soul. There can be things in ones life (whether drugs, or events) which make it harder for a person to control themselves, or cause them to 'break', and I think then the judgement of responsibility becomes more nuanced.

But I simply do not believe in police entrapment of people. I do not believe that people should be arrested for events in which the victims are fictitious. I believe this fundamentally on a moral level, but also because I've read too much about overly zealous traps, and dishonesty by law enforcement, where people who would never have committed these crimes in 'real life' wind up going to prison for a very long time.


prototek wrote:
Stephen, thanks but I don't see how your comment adds balance.
If Mirapex had a side effect that makes one want to have sex with an underage partner then it would possible add "a little balance".
Let me get this straight... Are there really people out there that think just because Charles was feeling "hyper sexual" due to his meds that it makes it ok he agreed to have oral sex with a 14 y.o.? Why not find a partner who is legal? All the Mirapex thing does is establish it's possible he was feeling "hyper sexual". The medication has nothing to do with his predilection for under age boys.

Vsyevolod wrote:
From the Wikipedia page on Mirapex and related drugs:


Several unusual adverse effects of pramipexole (and related D3-preferring dopamine agonist medications such as ropinirole) may include compulsive gambling, punding, hypersexuality, and overeating, even in patients without any prior history of these behaviours.

...just to add a little balance...

Stephen
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next [all]
Page 4 of 5
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group