|
Post by goldenfist on Oct 19, 2007 12:01:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 19, 2007 14:05:39 GMT -5
Doc Sampson's fantasies involving Norman and Karla were amusing. I guess it's good that Robbie is getting some help, since he isn't responsible for Stamford (that would be Nitro) and he needs to understand this before his strange "Penance" identity causes him permanent psychological harm.
I see in the blurb Venom bit off someone's arm. Nice, real nice the kind of folks the Initiative has working for it. The Thunderbolts, by themselves, demonstrate the grave peril of placing all the superheroes under government control.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 25, 2007 14:16:08 GMT -5
I see in the blurb Venom bit off someone's arm. Nice, real nice the kind of folks the Initiative has working for it. The Thunderbolts, by themselves, demonstrate the grave peril of placing all the superheroes under government control. Incorrect. The Thunderbolts demonstrate the grave peril of placing the super VILLAINS under government control.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 25, 2007 16:55:35 GMT -5
Hey, the T-Bolts are "Initiative: Colorado." Jack Flagg and whomever lost an arm to Venom committed the grave offense of wishing to maintain their privacy and their freedom from government intrusion into their lives. For that, they are permanently maimed.
And the Marvel US government is perfectly okay with that or it would have disbanded the T-Bolts after the Jack Flagg incident. In many jurisdictions here in the US, police cannot engage in hot pursuit unless the suspect is wanted in connection with a crime so serious that the dangers of hot pursuit, to the officers, bystanders, and the suspect, are less than the dangers of letting the suspect go. Evidently, at least in the case of the T-Bolts, the government regards a desire for privacy on the part of a super powered being (i.e. refusal to obey the SHRA) as a crime so serious that maiming the suspect is acceptable. In their pursuit of Jack Flagg, government agents blew up a bunch of people's cars, and exposed bystanders to grave hazard from those explosions, just to make Jack Flagg look like a villain. And, again, the government is perfectly okay with that (or Moonstone would be suspended and awaiting trial or even in prison. Is she?)
I wonder why the government wants those names so badly? In the real world the answer would probably be a desire to absolutely control those with powers. What will Marvel's answer be?
Another possibility is that the book is being written because Ellis likes to write violent stories, and Marvel sees in him a creator who can craft a book that appeals to a reader who likes blood and violence and a lot of it (this is what Ellis delivered in The Punisher). Have they, to tap that market, elected to allow the T-Bolts to exist despite the fact that any *realistic* law enforcement agency with their track record would be disbanded by this point? That argues that sales are more important than continuity and the hyper-realism they have adopted as a storytelling goal.
Which is it? I'll leave that as an exercise of the interested student.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 26, 2007 5:44:59 GMT -5
Hey, the T-Bolts are "Initiative: Colorado." Jack Flagg and whomever lost an arm to Venom committed the grave offense of wishing to maintain their privacy and their freedom from government intrusion into their lives. For that, they are permanently maimed. Actually no, the person who lost an arm to Venom commited the grave offence of shooting people in the face. Correction: The Comission on Superhuman Activities, who have *always* in the history of Marvel been corrupt, are okay with that. The director of SHIELD and the pro-reg heroes are absolutely not, but the CSA are covering up so much that I doubt many outside the agency know exactly what's going on. Well, firstly, it's hardly a "desire for privacy" since their privacy is no more intruded afterwards than beforehand. Secondly, as above Steel Spider was hunted for beating criminals into comas and shooting them, so I don't think that the "desire for privacy" was the reason he was targeted. Again, the government don't know what happened. The person who does is Norman Osborn, but above that, basically no one. I'm sure others in the CSA have an idea though. Probably that they don't know, since, y'know... they don't. Especially since the government aren't even getting those names/ Well anyone with any sort of actual experience in story telling or a vague interest in building drama, or indeed any sort of dramatic device within a story, would probably point out that there are a vast range of possibilities outside those you name but certainly I've learnt better by now than to try and assume you of all people could ever have a remotely open mind, Balok.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 26, 2007 8:48:05 GMT -5
Actually no, the person who lost an arm to Venom commited the grave offence of shooting people in the face. Okay. That explains the Steel Spider, although even in his situation law enforcement is not generally permitted to use deadly force unless faced with deadly force. And certainly not that kind of deadly force. In a normal law enforcement situation Venom would be suspended and probably fired for responding in this fashion. And this doesn't explain their entirely disproportionate response to Jack Flagg. Correction: The Comission on Superhuman Activities, who have *always* in the history of Marvel been corrupt, are okay with that. The director of SHIELD and the pro-reg heroes are absolutely not, but the CSA are covering up so much that I doubt many outside the agency know exactly what's going on. They're a part of the government. If the government didn't like what they were doing it would disband them, or at the least clean house. So one possibility is that the Marvel US government is perfectly okay with what they're doing. Given the CSA's history to which you allude, and the fact that they have placed a psychopath in charge of the T-Bolts, if the government isn't keeping a very close eye on them then it is guilty of depraved indifference, or criminal malfeasance. So the government could be too stupid, too indifferent, or happy with the way the CSA runs things. If you'd care to offer supported alternatives by all means do so. Because these three make the Marvel US government look like a poor custodian of super powered beings, be they heroic or villainous. Remember that this is the agency (according to Tony in the battle damage report) that will eventually receive control over the entire Initiative. Unless he has changed that plan in some issue I haven't read. Well, firstly, it's hardly a "desire for privacy" since their privacy is no more intruded afterwards than beforehand. If the government can connect an identity to a set of powers that person has lost a key element of their privacy. You can't really argue otherwise. You can argue that this is (or should be) okay (the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause might be tested here). You can even argue that merely possessing powers makes someone more dangerous, but isn't that like arguing that possessing a gun makes one a killer? I know several people who own firearms. None of them are killers. I contend that an individual's moral character has more to do with how he behaves than whether he has powers or not. And I contend that for most people, the acquisition of powers would not erase their moral center. Do you believe otherwise? Secondly, as above Steel Spider was hunted for beating criminals into comas and shooting them, so I don't think that the "desire for privacy" was the reason he was targeted. Okay. Now explain Jack Flagg, if you can. Again, the government don't know what happened. The person who does is Norman Osborn, but above that, basically no one. I'm sure others in the CSA have an idea though. Some government official thought putting Norman in charge of the T-Bolts was a good idea. Given his record, doesn't that sort of argue that the government is a poor decision maker in this area? It does to me. Probably that they don't know, since, y'know... they don't. Especially since the government aren't even getting those names/ Tony works for the government. Any time they ask for the names, he has to provide them, unless you can cite somewhere where he hammered out an agreement specifying otherwise. Is there such an agreement? And even if there is, what keeps them from taking a copy of the database and simply cracking whatever encryption Tony used on it? He's smart, but he's not as smart as all the computer and mathematical geeks the NSA could bring to bear on that problem - and would, if instructed to. For they, too, have bosses. Well anyone with any sort of actual experience in story telling or a vague interest in building drama, or indeed any sort of dramatic device within a story, would probably point out that there are a vast range of possibilities outside those you name but certainly I've learnt better by now than to try and assume you of all people could ever have a remotely open mind, Balok. Very well. Open my mind. Offer some of those alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Oct 26, 2007 12:36:57 GMT -5
Another possibility is that the book is being written because Ellis likes to write violent stories, and Marvel sees in him a creator who can craft a book that appeals to a reader who likes blood and violence and a lot of it (this is what Ellis delivered in The Punisher) Garth Ennis is who´s writing The Punisher, not Warren Ellis. And yes, Garth Ennis is known for violent stories but how could anyone write a Punisher story without (or with less) violence?
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 26, 2007 12:46:23 GMT -5
Garth Ennis is who´s writing The Punisher, not Warren Ellis. And yes, Garth Ennis is known for violent stories but how could anyone write a Punisher story without (or with less) violence? My mistake. And, you can't write a Punisher story without a lot of wholesale slaughter. That's the nature of the character. I'm just sad to see that apparently spreading to more mainstream Marvel books, like T-Bolts, which never started out that way. I wouldn't mind hearing Busiek's opinion on what Marvel has done with his creation, but I doubt I ever will.
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Oct 26, 2007 15:44:17 GMT -5
Garth Ennis is who´s writing The Punisher, not Warren Ellis. And yes, Garth Ennis is known for violent stories but how could anyone write a Punisher story without (or with less) violence? My mistake. And, you can't write a Punisher story without a lot of wholesale slaughter. That's the nature of the character. I'm just sad to see that apparently spreading to more mainstream Marvel books, like T-Bolts, which never started out that way. I wouldn't mind hearing Busiek's opinion on what Marvel has done with his creation, but I doubt I ever will. I doubt very much Busiek's reading it. Not a slam against the book. Simply I read his site every once in a while and he tends not to read a whole lot of books, but rather a select few, and that list often doesn't include books he used to write.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 27, 2007 14:35:22 GMT -5
Okay. That explains the Steel Spider, although even in his situation law enforcement is not generally permitted to use deadly force unless faced with deadly force. And certainly not that kind of deadly force. In a normal law enforcement situation Venom would be suspended and probably fired for responding in this fashion. Well firstly, the response is not lethal force because.. you know, he's alive. Secondly, Venom was going to be... er... 'suspended' (Zapped) but the field leader was otherwise occupied (having been impaled) at the time and thus unable to doll out justice. Thirdly, if you think the Thunderbolts are anything close to a normal law enforcement agency... you need to, y'know, read it. The official response, as in the one *everyone* outside the Thunderbolts themselves believes, is that Jack Flag blew up a car park. So we can hardly penalise the government for that. And again, Balok tries to claim he knows more than he does while being SUPREMELY naive and acting as though all government branches and centres are clearly unified. This is why you can't get this book, you keep trying to either translate something simple into something complex or else trying to twist it until it doesn't make sense. The CSA *are* gulty of these. Of COURSE they are! They put the Green God-Damned Goblin in charge! What part of that ISN'T depraved and criminal? The difference is, you're trying to d**n the entire government for it despite the fact that the marvel government has done FAR worse things in the past and you've raised no objections. I'd rather have Osborn in this position than the Red Freaking Skull as SecDef, thanks very much! And again you exercise your momentous double standard. Firstly, if you weren't willfully blind, you'd note that Tony wants to totally overhaul the CSA before command is given to them. Hence why, you know, command hasn't been given to them. Secondly, aspects of the MU government are hopelessly incompetent and corrupt. Of course they are, they always have been. Butg that DOESN'T d**n them all. The problem is, if you want to d**n the whole government, then you have to ask yourself why the heroes bother upholding the laws of this government and putting criminals in it's jails to begin with. And if you want to do that, you can't be hypocritical (However naturally it may come to you) and only apply it now. Because the government have useless in the MU for decades, since long before Civil War. So go ahead, it's your choice, really. Either this is a problem concieved long ago and NOT caused by these guys... or else there's no problem. You forget that I support firearm registration as well. Sure, so some guy who can fire energy beams isn't a threat one day. What if he's attacked, and manages to blow up a house in self defence? Kill a neighbour? Hell, blow up the neighbourhood. But that's all okay, right. WHy should these people be held accountable for what they do? They have superpowers, therefore they're ABOVE law, right? This isn't taking away privacy they deserve. This is giving them equal privacy with normal citizens, and not giving them massive privileges to make them exempt from the law. Why in the name of God can you not get this very simple concept? The Thunderbolts are BLATANTLY EVIL! I don't have to justify them because they're wrong and they're SUPPOSED to be wrong. Clearly I had forgotten the massive collective government hive mind which decides on everything in every branch. How foolish of me, Balok. Technically no, he doesn't, no. He's Director of SHIELD. He answers to higher powers. Wrong yet again. Nothing new for you, of course. He has Extremis. He doesn't NEED to put things in a database, he IS a database.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 27, 2007 17:07:03 GMT -5
...law enforcement is not generally permitted to use deadly force... Well firstly, the response is not lethal force because.. you know, he's alive. I didn't say lethal force, I said deadly force, by which I mean "force sufficient to cause crippling injury." In any event, it's semantics. We agree that the T-Bolts are evil. Secondly, Venom was going to be... er... 'suspended' (Zapped) but the field leader was otherwise occupied (having been impaled) at the time and thus unable to doll out justice. Was the team leader killed by this impaling? If not, what happened to Venom when said team leader reported to Norman? The official response, as in the one *everyone* outside the Thunderbolts themselves believes, is that Jack Flag blew up a car park. So we can hardly penalise the government for that. Unless they later murdered Jack Flagg to shut him up, he could and probably would deny this allegation. That would likely prompt an internal affairs type of investigation, which should have revealed the truth. Is Radioactive Man back to villainy, such that he would lie to an official investigator about what Moonstone ordered him to do? And again, Balok tries to claim he knows more than he does while being SUPREMELY naive and acting as though all government branches and centres are clearly unified. I offered one possibility, that's all. And I offered it politely. This is why you can't get this book, you keep trying to either translate something simple into something complex or else trying to twist it until it doesn't make sense. The CSA *are* gulty of these. Of COURSE they are! They put the Green God-Damned Goblin in charge! What part of that ISN'T depraved and criminal? Okay, we're agreed on two points: the T-Bolts are an evil organization, and the government agency that runs them is evil. Now the question becomes, why hasn't anyone done anything about it? These people must report to someone. What possibilities are there other than these: that person is also evil, or, that person is stupid, or, that person is okay with what the CSA does. You can follow this all the way up the ladder to the highest echelons of government. And my contention remains what it has been: that government's potential for evil is so much greater than its potential for good that the scope and level of its power must be sharply limited by a Constitution or similar governing document. I see the T-Bolts and their CSA bosses as a clear demonstration of this principle. The difference is, you're trying to d**n the entire government for it despite the fact that the marvel government has done FAR worse things in the past and you've raised no objections. I'd rather have Osborn in this position than the Red Freaking Skull as SecDef, thanks very much! This is the worst thing it has done since I've belonged to this board. But the ability of the Red Skull to infiltrate all the way up to the level of SecDef also demonstrates the hazard of government: you have to be so very careful in granting power to small groups (relatively speaking) because power granted will always be used, and usually misused. (I, by the way, am not the original author of that observation about government. It's been around since the days of Lord Acton.) And again you exercise your momentous double standard. Firstly, if you weren't willfully blind, you'd note that Tony wants to totally overhaul the CSA before command is given to them. Okay. I'll accept that this might have happened in some book I haven't read. Secondly, aspects of the MU government are hopelessly incompetent and corrupt. Of course they are, they always have been. Butg that DOESN'T d**n them all. You see government differently that I do. I see demonstrations of incompetence and corruption as the tip of the iceberg, and you see them as little islands of rot that can be cut away. Although that does prompt me to ask again: why haven't they been cut away? The problem is, if you want to d**n the whole government, then you have to ask yourself why the heroes bother upholding the laws of this government and putting criminals in it's jails to begin with. And if you want to do that, you can't be hypocritical (However naturally it may come to you) and only apply it now. Because the government have useless in the MU for decades, since long before Civil War. So go ahead, it's your choice, really. Either this is a problem concieved long ago and NOT caused by these guys... or else there's no problem. Oh, it's a problem that's been around for a long, long time. What has changed is that instead of the possibility of superheroes existing to right such wrongs, the superheroes are now controlled by the source of those wrongs. And those who object to such control, well, they end up in wheelchairs or missing important body parts. You forget that I support firearm registration as well. Sure, so some guy who can fire energy beams isn't a threat one day. What if he's attacked, and manages to blow up a house in self defence? Kill a neighbour? Hell, blow up the neighbourhood. But that's all okay, right. WHy should these people be held accountable for what they do? They have superpowers, therefore they're ABOVE law, right? Not at all. But instead of assuming they'll go wrong before they actually do, I treat such incidents as the crimes they are, and fully support law enforcement efforts. It's interesting: you seem to regard the individual as basically immoral, at least if he has power like a gun or super abilities, whereas you regard the government made up of such individuals as basically moral. I see it the reverse, because in my view, organizations tend to magnify the worst elements of their components and not the best. That view is based on empirical data from over here (and Canada, and Mexico, whose governments also have a lot of ethical problems). In addition to government, I base this perspective on observation of corporate behavior, behavior of religious organizations, and even of some groups. It's mob rule, but not *quite* as destructive. This isn't taking away privacy they deserve. This is giving them equal privacy with normal citizens, and not giving them massive privileges to make them exempt from the law. I don't know about Ireland, but over here normal citizens aren't required to keep the government apprised of their whereabouts except in certain special circumstances, most of which have to do with their having been convicted of a crime. Therefore, at least as regards the U.S., your statement is not factual. Why in the name of God can you not get this very simple concept? The Thunderbolts are BLATANTLY EVIL! I don't have to justify them because they're wrong and they're SUPPOSED to be wrong. Take it easy. Remember, you're responding to the same post. A simple "see above" would have handled this adequately. Clearly I had forgotten the massive collective government hive mind which decides on everything in every branch. How foolish of me, Balok. No massive hive mind, but there have got to be some people that know what the CSA is, and they must have told the people to whom the CSA reports - and yet the government has done nothing. It doesn't matter what the FDA or the IRS does because those facets of government aren't under discussion here. This discussion is really limited to the CSA and those to whom it reports: people who are either accepting of the CSA's behavior or too stupid/lazy to be in charge of it. Technically no, he doesn't, no. Then... to whom does he report? I recall reading that the U.S. government picked him for that position. Does he report to the U.N.? If so, well, remember "oil for food?" That demonstrated that the U.N. has its share of bad actors, some of them quite highly placed. I don't trust it any more than I trust the U.S. government. He's Director of SHIELD. He answers to higher powers. Or, lower, depending on your perspective. Wrong yet again. Nothing new for you, of course. He has Extremis. He doesn't NEED to put things in a database, he IS a database. You have a source that says he's got the data stored internally, and not on a computer somewhere? Do you have a source that says he has an agreement with his bosses that he doesn't have to give them the data if they ask for it? I'll close by noting that I have attempted to keep this discussion civil. Perhaps you could make the same attempt.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 1, 2007 13:46:10 GMT -5
Was the team leader killed by this impaling? If not, what happened to Venom when said team leader reported to Norman? Good question, but there's no answer on-panel so who knows. No, he's not. On the other hand, who's Flag going to talk to? Who's going to believe him? No, just hopelessly corrupt. Well you could... or, you could take the more likely option and not do so. They're corrupt, they report to a corrupt organization, the corrupt organization cover their tracks and report to an UNcorrupt but naive organization who have no idea what's going on. Mine remains what it has been too; that government's potential for good is exactly equivalent to it's potential for evil. Indeed. So answer the question then, should heroes enforce the law in a land where Red Skull can be SecDef? Because the iceberg doesn't all realize parts of it are rotting yet, and the parts that do realize this can't persuade the whole. Not at all. You see, this ISN'T the source of such wrongs. There is no single source at all, only parts of a purer whole. But the heroes have always enforced the laws and rules laid down by what you consider to be the source of all evil, apparantly. Wrong, I'm afraid. I regard any individual as just as likely to do good and he is to do evil, and the same holds exactly true for the government *BUT* the government should be given more power because they are selected by the people, who have a right to choose their leaders and what power to give them. I don't know about whatever issues you've been reading, if any, but in just about every Marvel comic I've read, neither are the super humans. Therefore my statement is factual. Says who? And why should the government believe them? Or- and again, your tunnel vision is your undoing, who DON'T know the scope of what is going on beneath them due to naivety or another factor. Well good for you but he reports to the UN anyway. I don't need them. You're the one making extremist claims, do YOU have something that says he does have these things the way you say he does? I extend to you the exact courtesy or lack thereof you have extended to me on numerous occasions, and moreover, the courtesy you extended to the w. I'm sick of having to feign a modicum of respect and courtesy which was never returned in kind, just as I am sick of this forum as a whole and it's hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Nov 1, 2007 14:54:00 GMT -5
No, he's not. On the other hand, who's Flag going to talk to? Who's going to believe him? News reporters. Oh, not Ben Urich - he's a sellout. But there might be a few honest ones still left interested in publishing the story and asking the right questions. Realistically, what other options has Flagg got left? The machinery of government has failed and mistreated him as it does so many. No, just hopelessly corrupt. It's a fine line between hopelessly corrupt and evil, methinks. Well you could... or, you could take the more likely option and not do so. They're corrupt, they report to a corrupt organization, the corrupt organization cover their tracks and report to an UNcorrupt but naive organization who have no idea what's going on. But somewhere in there is some combination of evil, naive, or indifferent. And that's the hazard of placing so much power in the hands of the government that I've been talking about. It's simply unwise. Mine remains what it has been too; that government's potential for good is exactly equivalent to it's potential for evil. My government demonstrates that this is not true. Perhaps you have a better government, but I'd suspect it's only better at covering its tracks. Large aggregations like corporations (Enron, Worldcom) and religions (covering up child molestor priests) argue that such aggregation tends to enhance evil more than good. Government, being made up of fallible humans, is no different. This is why I believe it must be small and very restricted in its power. Indeed. So answer the question then, should heroes enforce the law in a land where Red Skull can be SecDef? The situations are a little different: when the Red Skull was discovered he didn't *remain* SecDef. All kinds of important people know (or should) what's going on in Colorado and at Camp Hammond and yet they do nothing about it. The Red Skull incident was the rot that got cut away. The Initiative and the CSA that will soon control it are the rot that is taking over. Not at all. You see, this ISN'T the source of such wrongs. There is no single source at all, only parts of a purer whole. But the heroes have always enforced the laws and rules laid down by what you consider to be the source of all evil, apparantly. Not the source of all evil, just a thing that has great potential for evil, and whose potential is now backed by a superhuman army shortly to be run by evil men (the CSA). If Tony hasn't been able to change the CSA before this, why should I believe he can? Or cares to? Wrong, I'm afraid. I regard any individual as just as likely to do good and he is to do evil, and the same holds exactly true for the government *BUT* the government should be given more power because they are selected by the people, who have a right to choose their leaders and what power to give them. If you're willing to add a set of important constraints, like our Bill of Rights, that says even the government may never do some things, I might agree. Our Bill of Rights is a nice start but not limiting enough. I don't know about whatever issues you've been reading, if any, but in just about every Marvel comic I've read, neither are the super humans. Therefore my statement is factual. I believe that the SHRA does require them to provide their names, addresses, other contact information and full details about their powers to... well, that's unclear. It seems odd that the SHRA, a United States law, would permit such information to remain in the exclusive custody of a citizen who is not a Federal employee (Tony). And if he IS a Federal employee, then the government does de facto have that information. An analogous situation is child molesters. Over here, most of them must register as sex offenders, which means providing their name and address. They must update that if they move; many do not, but those who are caught are generally fined for such infractions. The SHRA doesn't make much sense if it doesn't require the individual to provide contact information, and keep it up to date, does it? In that event, how does it help the government keep tabs on the heroes. Says who? And why should the government believe them? There are - or should be - ways of investigating complaints. If there aren't, that's a different problem with the government but still a problem. If there are, no one has used them. Why? (Over here the GSA or even the FBI will investigate whistleblower complaints.) Or- and again, your tunnel vision is your undoing, who DON'T know the scope of what is going on beneath them due to naivety or another factor. For the purpose of determining whether government control of a superpowered army is a hazard to the citizens, does it matter whether government is outright evil or simply too dumb to understand how its army is being misused? It's like the case with a psychopath: he's not entirely in control of what he does, but he is still dangerous, and still needs to be locked up because he will never not be dangerous. I don't need them. You're the one making extremist claims, do YOU have something that says he does have these things the way you say he does? I touched on this a little above, and part of the problem is that the SHRA is vague (that might be an indication that it wasn't well thought out, and as a Marvel Universe changing event should have been). However, its very unlikely that the Act would permit custody of required information to remain with someone who is not a Federal employee. Therefore, it is less reasonable to assume that Tony stores it internally than to assume it's on a computer somewhere. Additionally, Federal law over here generally does not an individual to retain sole custody over Federal data. The hazards are obvious. My claim is reasonable. Yours is inconsistent with how Federal law works, at least over here. And if the names are on a computer somewhere, soon enough they'll be on a lot of computers in a lot of places. I extend to you the exact courtesy or lack thereof you have extended to me on numerous occasions, and moreover, the courtesy you extended to the w. I'm sick of having to feign a modicum of respect and courtesy which was never returned in kind, just as I am sick of this forum as a whole and it's hypocrisy. I have shown you no discourtesy on this thread. I have said all I care to say on the subject of 'thew40' elsewhere. But hold grudges if it makes you feel better.
|
|