I can think of one person in particular who will almost certainly be on many people's watch list  |
|
|
|
Stellar69 has yet to provide any valid proof. I wouldn't trust any of his claims against OP after so many proofs were provided by him. And actually... He implies that if an account has been sold then he will not recover the account back to the previous owner if he can tell that it was sold.
It's been said by mods that accounts will be recovered regardless. That's why buying accounts is always risky for the buyer. because if the seller has used an address in a PM, he'll be able to claim the account's ownership at any time. This is not true. Theymos has said that he will only potentially recover an account to the rightful owner. Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2hne0g/useraccounts_bitcointalkorg_not_like_other/Account recoveries are my lowest priority because they involve a ton of investigation, and you shouldn't lose your account in the first place. If my investigation is not thorough, I could end up accidentally "recovering" an account by giving it to a thief. But I don't often have hours of spare time to devote to such things, so I end up doing only a few account recoveries per month, and many requests get ignored. (I choose recent requests that look straightforward. For any forum business, if I ignored your past requests, resend it every couple of weeks and make it more clear/straightforward.)
This case is one that I have looked at previously. It has a 7-page thread. It's clear that the OP owned the account at one point. But there's a decent chance that the current owner bought the account from the original owner. Since the case is uncertain, I'm erring on the side of inaction for now. If you sell an account and it is apparent that the account has been sold to theymos (the only person who is willing/able to recover accounts) then the seller will not be able to recover the account. Regardless of what the mods say (I haven't even seen them say this and you did not post a link/quote so I would dispute they have even said this) they are not the ones who process these requests nor do they make the decision to recover an account or not. |
|
|
|
(we can ignore all the special characters that someone could potentially use as well as capital letters).
Nice strawman idk what you are talking about. Can you provide an actual counter argument as to why it would be easy to guess someone's password? One that uses actual logic unlike your complaint about the TX fees being a tax on transactions. Because not everyone includes only the letters of the alphabet in their passwords like you.  If you include special characters in your password then my arguement is stronger because it would take longer to guess a password |
|
|
|
quote pyramid
Are you sure about that? I have been able to arrange escrow in a matter of minutes with at least 3 escrow services and none of them charge an official fee for trades and some of them don't even ask that the sender pay a 2nd TX fee when the escrow needs to hold onto the money until they can verify the goods have been received by the buyer. The announcement threads of most escrow services say that they offer their services to make the forum a safe place to conduct business and does not have any public limits as to how small of trades they are willing to escrow. The forum does not moderate scams so there is no reason for it to get involved in this case. The only recourse that the OP has is to open a scam accusation (which he has done) to get both his account and the account that scammed him to received negative trust (which they both now have) until the scammer returns his account (which will likely never happen). I understand that scamming is not actually punishable under the forum rules, only via the trust system. The difference between this and other scams is that this involves a forum account, which the administration can and ought to intervene in, since it damages their forums directly. This shouldn't really be treated any differently than another method of account hacking which involves similar levels of deception. An interesting point to bring up is that according to theymos, any account can be recovered if you sign an address or PGP key associated with the account. If the forum rules take no position on scamming as you say they do, then it seems to me that a user has the right to recover their account regardless of whether it has been sold or used as collateral, as long as they are able to provide the right verification. The administration does not condone account sales, it merely tolerates them because they would happen elsewhere if not here. He may or may not recover this account. However the argument against recovering the account is that the OP willingly gave his account credentials to someone else. The reason was so he could receive a loan from stellar96 (allegedly), and although stellar96 has not provided a TXID to document that he has given the loan it is possible that he did give the loan (either via a traditional client that will broadcast the TX on the blockchain or via an off chain wallet service like coinbase) and the OP is trying to get free bitcoin. Theymos has said on reddit that he will generally do an investigation as to if the person claiming to own the account should really be the owner of such account and implies that he does not rely solely on a signed message. He implies that if an account has been sold then he will not recover the account back to the previous owner if he can tell that it was sold. |
|
|
|
Just curious,
How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?
~BCX~
IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised. In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow. It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party. I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a user to scam, simply because someone is stupid enough to fall for it. Yes, he is an idiot, and should take a lot of the blame, but the scammer wins in the end if he is allowed to keep the account. It is a bit silly to use escrow for such a small amount, which is why he probably trusted the lender not to run off with collateral that will be even more difficult to sell now that the account theft is public information. If he can sign a previous address and prove his ownership of the account, I don't see why theymos shouldn't return the account to him. Why is it silly to use escrow for such a small amount? Escrow is free. How would theymos know that the scammer/lender did not send bitcoin to the original owner via an address sent via Skype or some method that checking the account would not reveal. Most escrows are not free and many might not deal with a small amount like this. He seemed to need this loan as soon as possible, and finding a free escrow who was willing and available in the near future would have only added time to the transaction. He made a trade off between speed and safety and paid the price. There is always the problem of proving a transaction took place, which most reputable lenders solve by making transaction addresses public on the forums and keeping communications through PMs which can be checked later. In this case, stellar is denying loaning to the user at all. Both agree that payment was never sent, so this is not an issue here. No one has claimed to have bought the account, and no other lender has come forward to claim that the account is justly being held in collateral. There has been no legitimate explanation as to why the OP is no longer in control of the account he claims to be his, and if he can prove his ownership, then it should be returned to him. Are you sure about that? I have been able to arrange escrow in a matter of minutes with at least 3 escrow services and none of them charge an official fee for trades and some of them don't even ask that the sender pay a 2nd TX fee when the escrow needs to hold onto the money until they can verify the goods have been received by the buyer. The announcement threads of most escrow services say that they offer their services to make the forum a safe place to conduct business and does not have any public limits as to how small of trades they are willing to escrow. The forum does not moderate scams so there is no reason for it to get involved in this case. The only recourse that the OP has is to open a scam accusation (which he has done) to get both his account and the account that scammed him to received negative trust (which they both now have) until the scammer returns his account (which will likely never happen). |
|
|
|
Just curious,
How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?
~BCX~
IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised. In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow. It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party. I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a user to scam, simply because someone is stupid enough to fall for it. Yes, he is an idiot, and should take a lot of the blame, but the scammer wins in the end if he is allowed to keep the account. It is a bit silly to use escrow for such a small amount, which is why he probably trusted the lender not to run off with collateral that will be even more difficult to sell now that the account theft is public information. If he can sign a previous address and prove his ownership of the account, I don't see why theymos shouldn't return the account to him. Why is it silly to use escrow for such a small amount? Escrow is free. How would theymos know that the scammer/lender did not send bitcoin to the original owner via an address sent via Skype or some method that checking the account would not reveal. |
|
|
|
Just curious,
How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?
~BCX~
IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised. In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow. It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party. |
|
|
|
Just curious,
How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?
~BCX~
IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised. |
|
|
|
(we can ignore all the special characters that someone could potentially use as well as capital letters).
Nice strawman idk what you are talking about. Can you provide an actual counter argument as to why it would be easy to guess someone's password? One that uses actual logic unlike your complaint about the TX fees being a tax on transactions. |
|
|
|
Well this guy seems legit if he is accepting escrow for collaterals! Whats the need of putting scam accusition on someone who is ready for an escrow? Just dont send him any direct collateral
Oh the irony in this post EDIT: technically you are correct, however it appears that the person you were "lending" to did not follow this advice. |
|
|
|
bump
Whats the oldest account you currently have which is a Member or higher? Please pm me. I will probably buy today. I sent you a PM. For anyone else that is curious. I have both a senior member and a hero member account that was created in 2011. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I use Oracle VM Virtualbox - I just wasn't thinking.  You got hacked through a VM? No. I "use" it in that I play with it time to time. I ran the executable in my main OS. -snip-
I was stupid, and wanted to verify it was malware, so I ran it, thinking my anti-virus would protect me. Nothing happened.
-snip- I am not trying to be disrespectful, but were you drunk? You intentionally ran malware on your computer? |
|
|
|
Butterzone, I think where we agree is that not all critical posts in the marketplace or other areas where people are engaged in professional activities here are accurate or warranted. People who engage in such activity should not be free to do so without repercussion. Being critical of a user for engaging in actual fraudulent or dishonest activity is one thing, and users are free to bring light to anyone engaged in these acts pretty much on the entire forum. For the rest of the dedicated users operating here professionally and obeying posting guidelines, allowing this kind of activity or furthermore punishing users for acting against it is a slap in the face. Letting some one control their own marketplace thread does not some how silence critics because they have the ENTIRE FORUM to be critical of users. Not letting some one take a crap all over your storefront is not equivalent to silencing free speech.
Unless you own the property that someone is making speaking on, then you do not have any right to "punish" them for what they say. You do not own the thread in which you are selling your goods, and therefore you do not have any right to punish anyone who says anything in your thread (provided they are not attempting to scam). It is a valid question to ask why you are charging a certain price when others are charging a lower price. If you feel your price is appropriate then you should respond to then why they are appropriate and any potential customer can see both of your arguments in a transparent way. Yeah that works great in fantasy land. In reality trolls don't give a crap about logical arguments, and regardless it doesn't stop the damage done. Also I love the misquoting of the actual words I used about the mods "punishing" me for the trust I left, and attributing it to me as if I claimed I want to "punish" others. Quite disingenuous. You want a fair trading environment but also want to let people operate on this forum as if it were 4chan. I am not claiming the thread itself is my property, I am claiming it SHOULD be, at least within the confines of the marketplace section. Even if every single marketplace posting was self moderated it would not stop others from calling out fraud or abuse elsewhere in the forum. Additionally it costs you nothing to allow people to harass me, therefore you have no interest in protecting me to begin with, and neither do the mods. However there is plenty of incentive for people to drift from thread to thread and pretend like they are righting wrongs so they can look like social justice warriors and also entertain themselves with trolling in the process. People can cause harm with their words and by invading and hijacking otherwise productive threads. These people thrive off of destroying the work of others and due so under a guise of pointing out a wrong to put their victims on the defensive from the beginning of their perpetration of this harassment. This will continue to be exploited by disingenuous people until the moderators and staff correct their failed attempts at moderating trust in any way. As long as you comply to it, they will keep harassing then demanding the staff correct it for them. Neutral trust isn't going to fix anything, because the problem isn't the trust system, it is your attempts at moderating it. Staff/moderators your strategy is a failing one. Unfortunately you decided to punish me and others instead of accepting that fact. It does not matter if a troll is going to act logically or not. The troll can make their invalid argument then you can respond with logic to counter their argument. Unless they bring up an additional point there is no reason to respond further, if you do then you are only feeding the trolls. If the troll bumps their argument or continues to post trolling without you or anyone responding then you can report the post and it should be deleted and/or they will get banned. If you continue to respond to them then they are responding to you and their posts will likely not get deleted and will likely not get banned. It may not be easy to do this however if you ignore the troll they will eventually go away. Also if you leave a logical response to the troll then your potential customers will be able to see your response and can see that your trolls concerns are invalid (if this is actually the case). There is no reason for your marketplace threads to be your property. You did not invest any money in the development of the forum nor did you invest anything to get the forum to be as popular.used as it is today. If you were to pay the forum for the right to list what you are selling in the marketplace then it would be a different story, but you do not and it is not. Although it is a good practice to check places like scam accusations prior to buying from someone, I do not think that most/many people do and as a result all that a potential buyer can see is what is on the selling thread. If someone's concerns are not there then a buyer will probably not see them. Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4). Subjective systems are subjective. /unsubscribe
You are on default trust. You are trusted by both theymos and badbear. If you do not have any custom trust list then you can see who is on default trust by going to your trust settings. These are the people who are on default trust and who will impact anyone's trust in the eyes of anyone that has not customized their trust list; the positive numbers are the number of people who are on the root level of default trust have you on their trusted list: HostFat (2)
mikegogulski (1)
Luke-Jr (2)
dooglus (1)
Raize (2)
Maged (4)
gmaxwell (2)
Carnth (2)
TECSHARE (-2)
Caesium (1)
dilatedPixel (1)
phantastisch (1)
OgNasty (3)
CanaryInTheMine (1)
ckolivas (2)
paraipan (1)
John (John K.) (5)
danieldaniel (1)
dree12 (3)
Tomatocage (3)
SaltySpitoon (4)
ineededausername (1)
DeaDTerra (1)
BadBear (5)
El Cabron (-2)
Blazr (3)
LouReed (1)
xkrikl (1)
BCB (3)
PsychoticBoy (2)
btharper (1)
burnside (1)
Akka (1)
TheButterZone (2)
LoweryCBS (2)
stenkross (1)
Benson Samuel (2)
johnniewalker (1)
escrow.ms (3)
shiftybugger (1)
ThickAsThieves (2)
fluidjax (1)
binaryFate (1)
TomUnderSea (-1)
dwdoc (2)
Tywill (1)
DefaultTrust (7)
BayAreaCoins (1)
mitzie (1)
Jaaawsh (-1)
theymos (4)
rb1205 (1)
paci (1)
Stemby (1)
ziomik (1)
ercolinux (1)
diego1000 (1)
GIANNAT (1)
bertani (1)
Cripto (1)
ghibly79 (1)
sirius (1)
Gavin Andresen (3)
casascius (3)
Stunna (3)
OldScammerTag (1)
tysat (3)
piuk (1)
sveetsnelda (2)
nonnakip (1)
Miner-TE (1)
Noitev (1)
eleuthria (1)
luv2drnkbr (1)
Digigami (1)
E (1)
zapeta (1)
bitpop (1)
Mabsark (1)
redcomet (1)
ipxtreme (1)
Philj (1)
os2sam (1)
yxt (1)
knybe (1)
Trance104 (1)
conv3rsion (1)
tlr (1)
bitcoin-rigs.com (1)
Vod (3)
dtmcnamara (1)
notme (1)
FCTaiChi (1)
Mushroomized (2)
mainichi (1)
greeners (1)
dribbits (1)
echris1 (1)
bitcoiner49er (1)
freshzive (1)
arklan (1)
glendall (1)
Pistachio (1)
tarrant_01 (1)
tbcoin (1)
ElideN (1)
friedcat (1)
Bees Brothers (2)
Christoban (1)
Stale (1)
af_newbie (1)
eroxors (1)
camolist (1)
MrTeal (1)
cncguru (1)
Mendacium (1)
Dabs (2)
mem (1)
Namworld (1)
lky_svn (1)
420 (1)
mr2dave (1)
DobZombie (1)
gektek (1)
johnny5 (1)
dyingdreams (1)
Zillions (1)
phrog (1)
Domrada (1)
Mapuo (1)
philipma1957 (1)
jborkl (1)
RicRock (1)
jmutch (1)
MonocleMan (1)
b!z (1)
CoinHoarder (1)
absinth (1)
mitty (1)
(^_^) (1)
der_troll (1)
soy (1)
super3 (1)
iluvpcs (1)
batt01 (1)
xstr8guy (1)
MJGrae (1)
mobile (1)
nubbins (1)
hephaist0s (1)
BitcoinValet (1)
Timzim103 (1)
Rounder (1)
Nemo1024 (1)
TheXev (1)
ibminer (1)
Mooshire (1)
Benny1985 (1)
mrbrt (1)
hanti (1)
ssinc (1)
Kaega (1)
finlof (1)
True___Blue (1)
elchorizo (1)
fewerlaws (1)
bitterdog (1)
Swimmer63 (1)
locksmith9 (1)
Krellan (1)
Spendulus (1)
MikeMike (1)
statdude (1)
bluespaceant (1)
Hiroaki (1)
keeron (1)
Bigdaddyaz (1)
Polyatomic (1)
palmface (1)
flowdab (1)
SpaceCadet (1)
photon (1)
xzempt (1)
jdany (1)
mackstuart (1)
bmoconno (1)
jdot007 (1)
mrtg (1)
maxpower (1)
xjack (1)
CommanderVenus (1)
daddyfatsax (1)
Plesk (1)
helipotte (1)
aurel57 (1)
gambitv (1)
boyohi (1)
LaserHorse (1)
joeventura (1)
slashopt (1)
drofdelm (1)
canth (1)
zackclark70 (1)
cdogster (1)
DBOD (1)
addzz (1)
DustMite (1)
pixl8tr (1)
namoom (1)
blblr (1)
Taugeran (1)
arc45 (1)
smscotten (1)
Cilantro (1)
chadtn (1)
kinger1331 (1)
guytechie (1)
rumlazy (1)
fractalbc (1)
fforforest (1)
KyrosKrane (1)
ZBC3 (1)
rj11248 (1)
bitdigger2013 (1)
Damnsammit (1)
jaslo (1)
BorisAlt (1)
ASICSAUCE (1)
sidehack (1)
steelcave (1)
Rotorgeek (1)
buyer99 (1)
daddyhutch (1)
digeros (1)
west17m (1)
Trillium (1)
ziggysisland (1)
devthedev (1)
ryhan (1)
zac2013 (1)
atomriot (1)
metal_jacke1 (1)
Apheration (1)
spacebob (1)
2byZi (1)
terrapinflyer (1)
BenTheRighteous (1)
gsr18 (1)
Paddy (1)
Jennifer Smith (1)
J_Dubbs (1)
00Smurf (1)
ldh37 (1)
thomslik (1)
argakiig (1)
ManeBjorn (1)
Ski72 (1)
suchmoon (1)
Thai (1)
Vladimir (1)
grue (1)
Kluge (2)
piotr_n (1)
Mousepotato (1)
jwzguy (1)
Graet (1)
the joint (1)
Michail1 (1)
wallet.dat (1)
KWH (2)
Blazedout419 (1)
Powell (1)
shdvb (-1)
Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza (1)
nanotube (1)
zvs (1)
malevolent (1)
Korbman (1)
Deprived (1)
DiamondCardz (1)
DannyHamilton (2)
Boelens (1)
rarkenin (1)
idee2013 (1)
favdesu (1)
allinvain (1)
datafish (1)
smooth (1)
SebastianJu (1)
Rassah (1)
Otoh (1)
jackjack (1)
Eisenhower34 (1)
btc_jumpnrl (1)
etotheipi (1)
DeathAndTaxes (1)
CIYAM (1)
buysellbitcoin (1)
subvolatil (1)
cooldgamer (1)
shawshankinmate37927 (1)
webr3 (1)
vitalemontea (1)
Chainsaw (1)
BladeRunner (1)
deadley (1)
Dragooon (1)
Evilish (1)
gudmunsn (1)
spartan82 (1)
Badman0316 (1)
goose20 (1)
americandesi (1)
Equate (1)
bobtaj (1)
Sovereign_Curtis (1)
instacash (1)
Clayce (1)
KCmining (1)
@ThisWeeksCoin (1) Here are the people who are on the "root" default trust list and can effectively add/remove people from default trust: sirius
theymos
HostFat
dooglus
Maged
OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
Tomatocage
SaltySpitoon
BadBear
escrow.ms
OldScammerTag It so happens that many people on this list happen to be moderators and may wear multiple hats when posting regarding trust in this section. They may be posting as a moderator or they may be posting as someone who is on the root level of default trust. Can anyone screenshot or otherwise link me to the Default Trust list? The closest I could find was under my user version of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - scrolled to the bottom (TLOT is one of the 3 on my trust list) and saw: TheLordOfTime serp DefaultTrust sirius
theymos
HostFat
dooglus
Maged
OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
Tomatocage
SaltySpitoon
BadBear
escrow.ms
OldScammerTagAren't all the names in bold the only ones on Default Trust? I believe that is correct. Because the forum is set to default 2 levels of trust, anyone who trusts you that is on that list also makes you part of the default trust tree. This is not quite correct. The above people must go into their trust settings and add/remove you in order to add/remove you from default trust. The above people can leave positive feedback for you without adding you to default trust |
|
|
|
-snip-
Collateral will be required, And if your not happy giving me the collateral directly then I am more than happy to use an Escrow.
-snip-
When dealing with new users all collateral should always be held by a trusted third party. |
|
|
|
Butterzone, I think where we agree is that not all critical posts in the marketplace or other areas where people are engaged in professional activities here are accurate or warranted. People who engage in such activity should not be free to do so without repercussion. Being critical of a user for engaging in actual fraudulent or dishonest activity is one thing, and users are free to bring light to anyone engaged in these acts pretty much on the entire forum. For the rest of the dedicated users operating here professionally and obeying posting guidelines, allowing this kind of activity or furthermore punishing users for acting against it is a slap in the face. Letting some one control their own marketplace thread does not some how silence critics because they have the ENTIRE FORUM to be critical of users. Not letting some one take a crap all over your storefront is not equivalent to silencing free speech.
Unless you own the property that someone is making speaking on, then you do not have any right to "punish" them for what they say. You do not own the thread in which you are selling your goods, and therefore you do not have any right to punish anyone who says anything in your thread (provided they are not attempting to scam). It is a valid question to ask why you are charging a certain price when others are charging a lower price. If you feel your price is appropriate then you should respond to then why they are appropriate and any potential customer can see both of your arguments in a transparent way. |
|
|
|
All the hacker has to do is guess the right PW or answer security question correctly and it's game over.
The chances of that are very lowOnly if its coupled with email verification though Just to put it into perspective as to how easy it is to guess someone's password: There are 26 potential english letters and 10 potential numbers that can be used in your password (we can ignore all the special characters that someone could potentially use as well as capital letters). If an attacker knew that a specific account's password was exactly 6 digits (I don't even think the forum allows for passwords to be this short) then the number of potential passwords would be 36^ 6 or written in base 10 scientific form 2176782336 ~2.17 * 10^ 9 or 2,176,782,336 or ~2.1 billion possibilities. Considering that an attacker can only attempt to "guess" a password once every 45 seconds, it would take 816,293,376 hours (34,012,224 days) to guess a password if the attacker has 100% luck (the attacker correctly guessed the correct password exactly half way though all the potential passwords). tl;dr it is not realistically possible to guess someone's password without some kind of social engineering and/or exploiting some kind of weakness of the person who owns the account (the owner somehow being at fault). |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. It's probably a good idea to take advantage of the market and low prices right now as I'm sure it's only a matter of time before more campaigns start popping up. I know of two or three potential ones that are looking at starting or re-starting but they could fall through.
I know that PD is one of them. What are the other two? Do you have any idea as to what the rates will be like? |
|
|
|
what are the extra features?
Reload and look the pic again.  ~~MZ~~ All I see is some weird toolbar at the bottom. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
