The free market is environment indifferent. The free market helps benefit those who exploit what it has to offer. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The actions of the government can protect or destroy the environment. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Properly and intelligently applied rules based on research can slow down the destruction of the environment in a world that seems to value economic growth over the protection of natural capital.
Do yourself and society a favor: never use your political agendas which are not 100 percent based on scientific evidence and knowledge about the environment and for protecting the environment as a vehicle to promote your political agendas as if they were designed to protect the environment. The two do not mix. Either you understand environmental issues and ecology and have an agenda to protect it, or you don't.
If your agenda is to promote a free market, then promote a free market with knowledge that you possess, and not with incomplete knowledge about other subjects.
Please read: Free-market environmentalism. |
|
|
|
...is posts like these. European Union is run by homosexuals. They are installing electric heating in new government buildings here that consume about 2KW per hour per apartment. In comparison HD6990 consumes only 1/6 of that under load. And they also banned 100W light bulbs.
While the moderators are busy censoring opinions they don't support, arbitrarily applying scammer tags, and spreading FUD with their powers, these posts are let be. And this one isn't even the worst one: constantly, sexism, homophobia, racism, and other blatantly indecent posts flood these forums like rabbits. While BitcoinTalk has certainly been fun, it has now been corrupted time and again. Unless the balance of power is restored, it will eventually pass the point of no return, the point at which the forum would have degraded to be lower than 4chan and the likes. |
|
|
|
This is what happens when protectionism and government intervention occur: a tax on solar panels. We already well know the the US puts twice as much money into oil than sustainable energy, spends millions on increasing oil production in the US colony in Mesopotamia (Iraq), and continues to mass-produce weapons for the military, polluting the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. It was no surprise that the government just doesn't care that our planet will become a forsaken garbage-filled steaming wasteland. But this is just ridiculous: taxing solar panels? The rationale given was that China doesn't have a free market. Well, guess what? Neither does the States. They can't get a free market until they stop this oil-run government from intervening in the market. |
|
|
|
However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum.
In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue.
What you and many others here fail to understand is this not a democracy and this does not belong to the people. This is a private forum hosted in the Internet. This is not a public domain neither a free speech zone. Because of this fact, complaints regarding the censorship or sponsorship practiced by the administrators and moderators are useless. The Bitcointalk forum is entitled to support or to suppress whatever the administrators and owners decide, not what the "vigilant" users decide. The "power" here belongs to the administrators and the owners, not to the users. The users are entitled to leave if BitcoinTalk continues this blatant sponsorship and remains authoritarian. The more people aware of censorship, the more likely they will leave. I compare this to a think-tank established by an umbrella organization. The umbrella organization definitely has the right to censor the decisions of the think-tank, but if this is revealed and people leave, the think-tank will lose its source of value. Therefore, the umbrella organization will have to comply with the demands of the participants. If participants give up on reporting censorship, other participants may not be aware and the umbrella organization will have too much power. |
|
|
|
I have already stated I am not a newbie here, however I do have to hide my identity or face moderator retribution like Rarity. He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban. You are not a credible source of information to defend accusations of conflict of interest against yourself. Rarity's posting style has not changed at all over the long time she has been here. All of a sudden when her criticism landed on you, however, it became "trolling" and banworthy. It doesn't pass the smell test. Post some examples of "trolling" from Rarity, because it always seemed to me that people just got upset that she posted counterpoints to a lot of the dogma taken for granted around here and people weren't able to put up with it. Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed. And Atlas doesn't? |
|
|
|
This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.
This is not entirely true. Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this: Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.
As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation. Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there. I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction. Best Regards, hazek Please do not accuse me of spreading fiction. I have monitored the Bitcoin Discussion boards for some time now, and my words were the truth and nothing but the truth. 1. hazek, you're really annoying me. First, you edited my OP and broke all of the links changing .org to .com. Then you sent me a PM asking if it would be ok to move this thread to Service Discussion. WTF? If discussion of the Foundation isn't a good topic for the main Discussion forum what is?Now you spout off about 'Gavin this, Gavin that.' It isn't easy to piss me off, but, I'm sorry, you're really pissing me off. Bounties? Really? Point me to a successful security-critical open source project where bounties pay the rent. I haven't tried kickstarter-like fundraising? http://blockchain.info/address/17XvU95PkpDqXAr8ieNpYzSdRDRJL55UQ8 is the address for the Bitcoin Testing Project, which has received a grand total of 72 BTC, which isn't nearly enough to pay a QA grunt, let alone a QA lead. You say "why change, Bitcoin has been working great for me!" It hasn't been working great for me; I'm frustrated by the lack of resources and all of the distractions I have to deal with as the unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment. I'm excited about the Foundation, because it is bringing together dedicated, effective people who all want Bitcoin to succeed. Emphasis mine. It does not take more than this to prove that Gavin maintains the Foundation thread in Bitcoin Discussion. He neither allows the community to decide nor follows guidelines about thread placement. 2. This thread, although not anymore, was previously stickied and remained so even after I reported it. Had the thread been about, e.g., "What's your opinion on Mt. Gox", it could not have remained in Bitcoin Discussion, let alone being stickied there. 3. The precedent, and thereby the case law states, that the Foundation thread be moved out. These, like Bitcoin Foundation, are services, and have been moved out (rightfully). 4. Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.
Please provide evidence of this. I'll reply to each point separately with to it's corresponding number: 1. I never disputed this as is evident in my post you quoted in the very beginning of your thread. I state "This is not entirely true.." and then proceed to explain what is true which entails me being instructed, against my personal judgment, to leave Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin discussions. 2. Yes this is true, again as mentioned in my post you quoted, I stickied that thread to get more votes. It's a neutral thread, not in favor of Bitcoin Foundation or against it, but merely a poll trying to gauge the community's acceptance of it. It is also evidence that threads discussing Bitcoin Foundation are no longer moved to Service Discussions as I stated in my post you quoted was done by me only for the first initial 24 hours after the announcement was posted. 3. I agree but I already stated as much and this was already covered under 1. 4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115303.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114297.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115785.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115024.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114911.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113842.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113823.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113735.0My case is not that the Bitcoin Foundation is being portrayed in too positive a light (I support the Bitcoin Foundation personally), but that it is unfairly given too much attention. All these threads that are left in Bitcoin Discussion reference the Bitcoin Foundation in some way. During the BTC-E hack, the Bitcoinica incident, etc., which are similar in nature, many similar threads were created, polls were made, etc.; however, these threads were moved to Service Discussion (as it was created for this purpose). Now, we see the same controversy, but no attempt to move it to Service Discussion/Announcements. To be honest, I would be content if the posts were moved to the correct sections and a sticky with links to all of them was left behind until the event passes from the media. But the current state in Bitcoin Discussion clearly overemphasizes the importance of Bitcoin Foundation. At this point, I feel compelled to apologize for the commotion I have caused. Although with every move to the authoritarian direction, I find BitcoinTalk less valuable as a society, it still by far beats out every other forum by the quality of the community. I understand it is hard to please everybody as a moderator, and as I am not one myself, I have not felt the pressure from barrages of reports or demanding statements from higher moderators or admins. As such, I retract my statement that you are to share in the blame, given your difficult role of moving threads out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum. In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue. |
|
|
|
This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.
This is not entirely true. Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this: Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.
As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation. Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there. I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction. Best Regards, hazek . As moderator of Bitcoin Discussion, you are to share in the blame. |
|
|
|
This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.
This is not entirely true. Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this: Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.
As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation. Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there. I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction. Best Regards, hazek Please do not accuse me of spreading fiction. I have monitored the Bitcoin Discussion boards for some time now, and my words were the truth and nothing but the truth. 1. hazek, you're really annoying me. First, you edited my OP and broke all of the links changing .org to .com. Then you sent me a PM asking if it would be ok to move this thread to Service Discussion. WTF? If discussion of the Foundation isn't a good topic for the main Discussion forum what is?Now you spout off about 'Gavin this, Gavin that.' It isn't easy to piss me off, but, I'm sorry, you're really pissing me off. Bounties? Really? Point me to a successful security-critical open source project where bounties pay the rent. I haven't tried kickstarter-like fundraising? http://blockchain.info/address/17XvU95PkpDqXAr8ieNpYzSdRDRJL55UQ8 is the address for the Bitcoin Testing Project, which has received a grand total of 72 BTC, which isn't nearly enough to pay a QA grunt, let alone a QA lead. You say "why change, Bitcoin has been working great for me!" It hasn't been working great for me; I'm frustrated by the lack of resources and all of the distractions I have to deal with as the unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment. I'm excited about the Foundation, because it is bringing together dedicated, effective people who all want Bitcoin to succeed. Emphasis mine. It does not take more than this to prove that Gavin maintains the Foundation thread in Bitcoin Discussion. He neither allows the community to decide nor follows guidelines about thread placement. 2. This thread, although not anymore, was previously stickied and remained so even after I reported it. Had the thread been about, e.g., "What's your opinion on Mt. Gox", it could not have remained in Bitcoin Discussion, let alone being stickied there. 3. The precedent, and thereby the case law states, that the Foundation thread be moved out. These, like Bitcoin Foundation, are services, and have been moved out (rightfully). 4. Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.
Please provide evidence of this. |
|
|
|
I know for a fact that Rarity wasn't banned for the theymos thread. Not going to tell you why Rarity was banned because I'm not sure I can disclose it, or else I would tell you.
Try harder, Rarity.
Yes, I'm saying you're a Rarity sockpuppet. You're lucky this isn't your beloved SA forums or else you'd need to pay again to come back.
Oh ye of little faith... Dancing Dan had all of 4 hours since registration to get ten posts in, learn everything there is to learn about bitcoin, figure out who the good guys and the bad guys (and gals?) are, and then be able to figure out a good level of moral outrage at the banning of somebody who was already banned when they got here, so all of it would be in the past, and still make this the first big issue they posted on. You don't think that was genuine outrage from a genuine n00b? Wonder if we might want to think about instituting that rule that you must be a member for X number of days before you can create a new thread? That will just make socks harder to find. |
|
|
|
We should discuss the chilling effects of long time user Rarity being banned for questioning Theymos in the scam accusations forum. Theymos may feel he is totally innocent in his role as a partner and officer with GLBSE but on a forum which depends on free speech for its value it is quite disturbing that this is the method used when the head administrator is questioned. The conflict of interests between Theymos' role with GLBSE and his role as overseer of the moderators on this forum who are judging scam accusations against his company has come to a point where it cannot be ignored when critics are being silenced. Theymos should step down as administrator on Bitcointalk at least until this matter is resolved. Even if totally innocent, the appearance of impropriety in this case is stark. The COI that mods on this forum have has already been previously demonstrated. I maintain that any mod who has a conflict of interest must not get involved in any censorship, banning, or relocation of threads pertaining to the issue; rather, they should Report the post or user just like the rest of us should. This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out. I don't believe that theymos should step down at this time. However, more open and democratic process on BitcoinTalk is past due. If this censorship continues, perhaps VIP members should vote to resolve these issues. |
|
|
|
If the store is clearly in the jurisdiction of either Canada or the US, then there is no contest. Duty-free shops, shops on the border, and online shops all (no exceptions) list US $ or CA $.
You mean like this online shop? http://tinyurl.com/92nu4rmI see dollar signs everywhere but no indication of USD vs CAD. Orbitz operates solely in the United States, therefore is clearly in the jurisdiction of the US. |
|
|
|
What many fail to realize is the severity of using the baht sign to represent Bitcoin. Canadian law is not Thai law, but it has to be pretty similar: Section 74.05 of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the sale or rent of a product at a price higher than its advertised price. The provision does not apply if the advertised price was a mistake and the error was immediately corrected.
Well, then it's a good thing the Canadian dollar is finally near parity to the US dollar. There must have been a lot of prosecutions all those years when the canadian dollar was so much cheaper.... since they both use the dollar sign and all. If the store is clearly in the jurisdiction of either Canada or the US, then there is no contest. Duty-free shops, shops on the border, and online shops all (no exceptions) list US $ or CA $. |
|
|
|
Roman has a "u" ?  -MarkM- Μ (μ), indeed, is commonly used alongside Latin alphabets. See this Wikipedia page. |
|
|
|
The ignorance in this thread is appalling. What many fail to realize is the severity of using the baht sign to represent Bitcoin. Canadian law is not Thai law, but it has to be pretty similar: Section 74.05 of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the sale or rent of a product at a price higher than its advertised price. The provision does not apply if the advertised price was a mistake and the error was immediately corrected.
If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to section 74.05, it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice and/or to pay an administrative monetary penalty of up to $750,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by an individual and $10,000,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by a corporation. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation.
The advertised prices may indeed be mistakes, as the business had not intended to sell the items at a bargain price. However, unless these errors are corrected as soon as someone complains, huge fines can result. No, dree12, a Canadian court would not rule a BTC pricing as a Thai Baht pricing if the intent was clearly a BTC transactions or vice-versa. If your courts did, you have bigger problems. Like it or not, in Thailand the default meaning of the Baht sign is a Baht. If you wish to sell to Thailand, you cannot use the Baht sign for Bitcoin unless you clearly state it, and if you do, you might as well use BTC. |
|
|
|
The ignorance in this thread is appalling. What many fail to realize is the severity of using the baht sign to represent Bitcoin. Canadian law is not Thai law, but it has to be pretty similar: Section 74.05 of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the sale or rent of a product at a price higher than its advertised price. The provision does not apply if the advertised price was a mistake and the error was immediately corrected.
If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to section 74.05, it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice and/or to pay an administrative monetary penalty of up to $750,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by an individual and $10,000,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by a corporation. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation.
The advertised prices may indeed be mistakes, as the business had not intended to sell the items at a bargain price. However, unless these errors are corrected as soon as someone complains, huge fines can result. |
|
|
|
There is certainly a copyrightable aspect about the blockchain, as any non-trivial work is under copyright. IANAL, but here is my take. First, a priori we know: - Most blocks in the blockchain has a parent that it refers to and effectively incorporates by reference.
- The only block that lacks a parent block is the genesis block.
- The genesis block was originally licenced under the MIT licence:
Copyright © 2009–2012 Bitcoin Developers
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
- No block since the genesis block has any specific licence attached to it (thus far).
Legally, if a work does not include any licence, it remains copyrighted and cannot be copied without notice. The production of a block uses and copies, by reference, the genesis block, directly or indirectly. Additionally, the copyright notice, and the permission notice, are both implied through reference. Therefore, we are left with only the non-genesis blocks. As the blocks produced by miners are not explicitly licensed, in theory, a miner retains the right to claim intellectual property over that block and all its derivatives. No sane miner would do this, as it effectively means that their blocks will be avoided in the future (and their income will be orphaned). The free market will attempt to build on blocks that have freer licences. This problem could have been solved if the genesis block were licenced in a copyleft licence, which unfortunately is not the case. Luckily, the miners existing now are unlikely to sue subsequent miners for copyright infringement, nor relaying nodes for unauthorized distribution. However, this is clearly a problem and should be solved. In conclusion, this loophole should be closed as soon as possible. Luckily, closing this loophole is as simple as explicitly licencing a block under a copyleft licence. One like this will do: Bitcoin Block License
Attached to a block
Usage, distribution, or any form of duplication of the block this licence has been attached with must solely be regulated by this license. You agree to this license by copying, distributing, or building upon this block, in any manner. This license applies to the entirety of this block, where the copyright owner has an active copyright on the block.
You receive the right to utilize the block, without restrictions. You also receive the right to build upon the block, with any derivative called a "Dependent Block", without restrictions, provided you do not distribute any Dependent Blocks.
If you distribute this block, or any Dependent Block, you must either include this license attached to your block at time of distribution, or be obliged to permanently relinquish the copyright to this block, where legally possible. If, for whatever reason, the previous clause is inadmissible, your Dependent Block is bound by this license, regardless of circumstance.
Certain preceding blocks are licensed under other licences. This license applies to the maximum extent allowed under the licences of preceding blocks.
This is almost certainly flawed from the start. Copyrights protect creative works. A private key is a random number completely devoid of creativity. It cannot be copyrighted. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), though, I am not a lawyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._RuralThis does not apply, because blocks are creative works. A block is not simply a random number, but rather a number that meets rigid and difficult criteria. In this sense, a block is more comparable to a work of art: randomly generated pixels do not constitute art, but pixels generated in a manner that is appealing does. |
|
|
|
ß
It's not "Sitcoin", it's Bitcoin. To me that looks like the Greek letter Beta, which is just a "b" in pronunciation. It might also be the German Eszett, but good fonts usually make the difference clear. It is a combination of a long s (like the integral sign) and short s (our usual s), and knowing this makes it easy to spot the difference. Of course, many basic fonts use beta for both, and we can only tell from context which one is intended. It's a sharp s (i.e. eszett). |
|
|
|
I honestly don't get the problem with using the Thai Baht (฿).
The resuse confusion argument holds no water given with how many times the dollar sign ($) is reused.
Then I suppose if we use the $ sign for Bitcoin, we'll fit right in? |
|
|
|
ß
It's not "Sitcoin", it's Bitcoin. ฿
Bitcoin is not a baht. Ƀ
Okay. The only beef I have with this is that it looks nothing like the most commonly used symbol. Б
Unusual and confusing for Russian speakers. We don't use "B" as a Bitcoin symbol, so using a Cyrillic version of it is not justified. Ъ
There is no "B" in this symbol. Ѣ
Okay, but does not look like a "B". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
