Doro

The Rage Corner

750 posts in this topic

you seem to be confusing "&" with "or" which leaves one response when you say this:

On 1/27/2017 at 8:14 AM, Eredor said:

That's incorrect phrasing then. You can't say both when only one category has a possibility of being correct. 

8vgCEM5(1).gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

you seem to be confusing "&" with "or" which leaves one response when you say this:

8vgCEM5(1).gif

Actually he's correct, the correct phrase should be the largest combined audience if that's what he is trying to say. 'and' implies that both sides of the condition are true, yet by your own admission the left side of the condition is false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

Actually he's correct, the correct phrase should be the largest combined audience if that's what he is trying to say. 'and' implies that both sides of the condition are true, yet by your own admission the left side of the condition is false. 

neither side is false, they are ALL variables.

prior to 1925 when Radio was added, there was only in person.  1949 the first Televised broadcast.  in 1997 the first Internet broadcast & as best i can tell in 2012 Tablet & Mobile device streaming data took off.  i can find no data on radio, but for the later comparisons, i don't believe it will be of much significance.

Ronald Regan's 1981 had a first place record estimated Nielsen US TV audience of 41.8 million viewers, but his in person crowd was small, estimated at only 10,000 (you can see the mall section is completely empty, though honestly 10,000 seems quite low, looks to be at least double that, however the crowd is quite thin near the water on the Capitol building side.)  it looked like this:

article-0-02DBF74B000005DC-180_468x305.j

 

the first internet stream happened during Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration & though i can find no recorded numbers for the stream, he had a Nielsen estimated US TV audience of 21.5 million viewers and the in person crowd was estimated at 250,000 (total 21,750 million + unknown internet figures) and looked like this:

pict444-obama-maison-blanche.jpg

 

Clinton's 1993 Inauguration had both a larger estimated Nielsen US TV audience of 29.7 million and an in person crowd estimated at 800,000 (total 30,500,00 & though there is no internet streaming yet i am going to go ahead and assume the 1997 net numbers won't be big enough to add up to 1993 audience totals.) it looked like this:

1993BillClintonIng_zpsxhb0hdsh.jpg

the tents you see above in the mall section are from the previous days celebrations, (for both photos above) but the crowd doesn't even reach back to 4th street. where the first tent is located in each photo.  this particular audience may be the widest in the Capitol Building section as there are a couple buildings not yet built that allowed for slightly wider audience arrangement that doesn't exist in all years following. even accounting for that, the 800,000 estimate seems a tad high, (by a couple hundred thousand.)

 

next i'll go with Obama's 2013 Inauguration which was not his record year.  ignoring Trump for now it is estimated that this was the 3rd largest in person crowd to the 2013 date at 1 million people.  the Nielsen estimated US TV numbers were 20.6 million viewers.  now this particular year had the combined internet usage that included streaming over Internet for PC, Tablet & Mobile but the boom on the later 2 devices was only really getting started.  all loose data i can find suggests a much MUCH smaller footprint than Trumps 2017 data streamed numbers... though i can find no hard concurrency numbers for Obama's 2013 inauguration & i didn't actually watch any streams, so i can't even attempt a memory recall.  estimates of the 1,000,000 in person attendees and the 20.6 million Television viewers is considerably lower than Reagan's 1981 record breaking audience.  regardless, here is what Obama's 2nd. looked like:

Inauguration-White-House-Photo-by-Chuck-

the above IMO for in person audience was the closest match for Trumps in person crowd which a rather uncomfortable large portion of media is actively denying, trying to frame otherwise, but here is Trumps 2017 in person crowd:

Inaug-Trump.jpg

the above two are VERY similar in person crowds in size, & small differences in density don't actually add up to much as each has places filled where the other lacks.  but for in person crowds, these are the 2 that really should have the most comparisons. front shots, back shots, monument included shots, side shots, etc.  even the media tent which is a smaller model in Obama's 2013 photo, (2009 doesn't have as best i can tell) & it is in the exact same location on 12 Street in the Mall section.

instead they chose to focus on the record breaking in person crowd from 2009 & to be honest that crowd does have the most available photos (including the best one of all, a satellite image, which because of the overcast in both above images, isn't available for 2013 & 2017 & i believe it would give the best indication of Trumps actual in person crowd size.  but for instance you can't find any back view of 2013 to match up with 2017...  it is all 2009 comparisons.

anyway, in person Obama did have the largest in person crowd at his 2009 Inauguration & here is what that looked like:

inauguration_2008.jpg

the above doesn't really do this justice, but i will include a huge satellite at the end of this post that gives the clearest picture of the extent of this record breaking in person crowd 2009.

anyway to clarify about the in person crowd,  what really ground my gears was the NY Times tweet photo, as it is a flat out lie. an image soo many retweeted as fact & even used to edit it in split shots, that further misrepresented the size even further with split shots showcasing the false numbers as peak & using Trumps left frame Vs. Obamas right, as example:

Trump-Obama-Inauguration-Crowd-Compariso

not only does it take an inaccurate snapshot (Fucking NY Times!) from Trump, but it purposely compares Trump's left (the emptier side) mall to Obama's right & the scale and focus is off.  Trumps photo is out of focus and compressed slightly & the actual image of the media tent is off, as if they purposefully edited it to look like more white space, instead of a structure.  here is a shot from the back that is close enough to reality, (from TIME of all places, Reuters also had accurate shot) that had this one been predominantly used  i would have far less contentions:

obama-wd-trump-inauguration-crowd-compar

the scale & alignment, clarity in focus (& most importantly) accurate reflection of crowd size at the very start of the inauguration would have been an honest comparison.  here is the Reuters one:

16114805_10154857353398418_3095435222732

though i really would have liked to see 2013 Vs. 2017...  the above is close to accurate (though missing a section from the Washington Monument)

ok, now for last just numbers comparison:

                         "In Person estimate"     "US Television Estimate"     "Stream over PC"     "Stream over Tablet /Mobile"      "total"

Bill Clinton 1993:         800,000                     29,721,041                             ---                                     ---          30,521,041

Barack Obama 2013   1,000,000                  20,600,000                            ???                                   ???         21,600,000+(?)

Ronald Reagan           10,000                       41,800,260                             ---                                     ---           41,800,270

Barack Obama 2009    1,800,000                 37,800,000                            ???                                    ---           39,600,000+(?)

Donald Trump 2017        ???                        31, 000,000                           ???                                   ???         ????????????

Trump i'd guesstimate  (900,000 - 1,100,000)    ^^^    record numbers>4.6 M (minimum)<huge record numbers  (37 M  - 50 M)

now with Barack Obama 2009 internet numbers i think he would pass Reagan.

the hard numbers i have, plus if i am correct about in person crowd i am absolutely confident Trump had 37 million at the VERY least, (it was way more!)  Mobile & Tablet growth (&streaming accordingly) have exploded in growth since 2012.  confirming Akami user usage data reporting & hard streaming concurrency numbers from major networks confirm Trumps 2017 data streaming footprint was record-breaking, by A LOT!

so no Trump's in person crowd wasn't as big as Obama's 2009 in person crowd & here is the satellite image from 2009 i promised:

obama_4403_17681689.jpg

all my clarifications above ...

"in person" AND "around the globe", Trumps 2017 Inauguration Audience was the biggest to date!

#1 TRUMP 2017

#2 Obama 2009

#3 Reagan 1981

# 4 Clinton 1993

#5 Obama 2013

but yes Obama 2009 had an entrance-gate-blocking protestor-free, satellite-photo-sunny, cloudless day that was the #1 "IN PERSON" crowd.

also it is funny no one disputed Sean Spicer's 3 inauguration section "we know holds" numbers, which were also flat out made up & would have made Obama's 2009 numbers impossible.

now why would i point that out?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.

Just to be clear, I couldn't actually give a shit about who had the most popular inauguration, petty squabbling about popularity and numbers is I suspect going to be a feature of the next 4 years, I'll leave that to the people that want to squabble about it. My post was just pointing out that Eredor was in fact correct with how he described the use of the word 'And'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

Ok.

Just to be clear, I couldn't actually give a shit about who had the most popular inauguration, petty squabbling about popularity and numbers is I suspect going to be a feature of the next 4 years, I'll leave that to the people that want to squabble about it.

normally i'd be right there with you in not caring either.  why is this time different?

i think Bill Maher said something along the lines of... and i paraphrase,  "in the past we have expressed partisan disapproval across party lines & as a Democrat, i gave the Bushes & Reagan a hard time.  i fought against McCain & Romney and we've received it back for our candidates, but this time ...  this time is different."

and from my perspective as a political centrist, i can't recall ever seeing the left lose it's mind quite like this (in my lifetime anyway) & i honestly think the shifts away from more traditional left positions, to the more radical, Marxist elements...  the reaction has been absurd.  peaceful protest now includes civil disobedience, in some cases to the point of domestic terrorism.  & suppression of political speech is now A-OK, even to the point of physical violence.  the left is increasingly Fash-ing out.  but that is the new state of things, at least for a little while longer.

anyway, if the Dems don't start thinking about running strong candidates & building that platform (the last DNC Chair Leadership Conference was a train-wreck) it'll be more than 4 years.  but they still seem to be so off track.

that or they'll have to actually ship people out of strong Blue States to register to vote (once) in a secondary state (giving up their main state vote) to shift electoral college votes.  because they have no presence in the seats of power to actually make any electoral college changes & if they can't better distribute that majority (which IMO is the size it is due to some voter fraud) they will lose again.

18 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

My post was just pointing out that Eredor was in fact correct with how he described the use of the word 'And'

and again, you are still wrong.  allow me to demonstrate with something symbolic that isn't related.

lets establish one operand as "represented individual oranges."  a banana is NOT an orange.  an apple is NOT an orange. a tomato is not an orange.  so if we are establishing represented individual oranges; only an orange is an orange is true. a banana is not an orange & would be false.

lets establish a second "different" operand as "represented individual pieces of fruit."  an orange is a piece of fruit, a banana is a piece of fruit, an apple is a piece of fruit &... is a tomato a piece of fruit? unless we are being incredibly pedantic... a tomato can be a piece of fruit. 

OK so those are the 2 separate operands.

Reggie Rawperformer has 1 orange AND 410 bananas in his basket.

Willie Corruptor has 80 oranges AND 300 bananas in his basket.

Black Orangutan has 180 oranges AND 370 bananas and 6 apples in his basket.

Dominic Toupee has 95 oranges AND 310 bananas and 46 apples and 100 tomatoes in his basket.

Black Orangutan has the most oranges "IF" represented individual oranges is the operand.

"IF" individual pieces of fruit is the operand then it is TRUE that Dominic Toupee has THE MOST individual pieces of fruit in his basket.

therefore, "in person" AND "around the globe" with regard to audience numbers, both operand ARE TRUE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly muddled analogy but you are also correct. 'And' can be used to indicate addition as in your analogy where you are adding oranges and bananas, we can also use logical And as Eredor did where we are testing that both sides of the condition are true.

You and Eredor are both correct. As I said, Eredor wasn't wrong. He did interpreted it differently to you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2017 at 1:35 AM, Laurinaohtar said:

Slightly muddled analogy but you are also correct. 'And' can be used to indicate addition as in your analogy where you are adding oranges and bananas, we can also use logical And as Eredor did where we are testing that both sides of the condition are true.

You and Eredor are both correct. As I said, Eredor wasn't wrong. He did interpreted it differently to you though.

fair enough.

so i have recently come across more photos and whilst not all of them scaled exactly due to slightly different angles; and some size sources were so vastly different that scaling to match, clarity was lost, but thought i'd upload them regardless.

even though it is missing the back monument section, i though this was an accurate comparison:

   Obama 2009 <--->Trump 2017

TrumpObamaActual_zpsjkxuplu7.jpg

i recently found the back portion for Trumps, so here it is & yes i believe it to be accurate ;)

TrumpObamaMissingMonty_zpscbxsbkhj.jpg

as you can see, Trumps monument section is next door to vacant.  & since the photo is actually taken from the top of the Washington Monument it can only show so much.  the satellite for Obamas 2009 shows what can't be captured from the camera on the Monument:

geoeye-wash-mon.jpg

so that 2009 Obama crowd was the record breaker at an estimated 1,800,000 or so.

the second place goes to Lyndon B. Johnson (1965 & a Democrat) at an estimated 1,200,000.

3rd is Obama second inauguration, estimated 1,000,000.  & i thought this was the fairest to compare Trumps recent to & i have found a back image for Obama's 2013 as well; mocked up a comparison composition:

2013Vs2017_zpsf6rxphcf.jpg

& now that i have seen the back facing image for 2013 & can see that Obamas Monument section is also empty...  his 2013 inauguration still holds 3rd. spot for "in person" crowd size.

previously Bill Clinton had 4th. spot in 1993 with an estimated 800,000 & i have seen several photos of that one from different angles & it is quite plain that crowd does not extend into the mall past 4th street.  Obamas 2013 crowd extends all the way back to 12th street.  in front of Trumps media tent located the backside of 12th. to 10th street is fairly sparse for Trump, but he clearly has people (though less dense than Obamas crowd) in the sections from 10th. to 4th.  here is a street map:

20100709210843!National_Mall_map.png

... 

so we know what 1.8 million is supposed to look like & what 1 million is supposed to look like & what 800,000 is supposed to look like & the areas they occupy & if those values are to be maintained as accurate?  i think it is safe to say Trump has the 4th largest "in person" inauguration crowd in history. & having seen more photos i'd put it slightly North of 900,000.  100,000 more people would easily fill up those white spaces.

& just to clarify, if Bill Clinton can fit 800,000 from the Capitol "speakers podium" to "4th street."  here are more views, just to show density...

INAU17.gifINAU16.gifINAU19.gif

yeah, Trump gets 4th spot to date...

& one last pic of (according to the media) Trumps poor turn out (because he lacks support)

636210589629747867-AP-Trump-Inauguration

4th largest "in person" turn out just isn't good enough... 

when you are dedicated to a narrative anyway.

given Washington DC physical location on the east coast in the midst of traditional blue states...  for a Republican candidate, whose turn-out would not be a local phenomena & all the other top crowds are on the Democrat side...  Trumps in person crowd was very good.  in fact a clear sign he does have support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I watch The Brit Awards, but it came up in the new today about how it's so progressive so it caught my attention.

Apparently, last year there was a major ruckus about it being too many white people. So this year they've decided to make it more equal. Let's see what they did with the nominees!

  • British Female Solo artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Male Solo artist - 1 white, 4 blacks
  • International Female Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • International Male Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Group - 5 whites, no blacks (how controversial!)
  • International Group - 3 whites, 2 blacks

Yup, their version of equality was to just over-represent blacks in their awards. With mixed races included, blacks only make up 5% of the UK population. Yet here they are, making up a whopping 50% of the nominees. They're now 10x more represented than they should be, but this was required to stop all the tantrums from the previous year.

Looks like all of these inane awards are just another platform for leftist bullshit and the spread of their racist agendas (which is ironic for people who claim to hate racism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Doro said:

Not that I watch The Brit Awards, but it came up in the new today about how it's so progressive so it caught my attention.

Apparently, last year there was a major ruckus about it being too many white people. So this year they've decided to make it more equal. Let's see what they did with the nominees!

  • British Female Solo artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Male Solo artist - 1 white, 4 blacks
  • International Female Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • International Male Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Group - 5 whites, no blacks (how controversial!)
  • International Group - 3 whites, 2 blacks

Yup, their version of equality was to just over-represent blacks in their awards. With mixed races included, blacks only make up 5% of the UK population. Yet here they are, making up a whopping 50% of the nominees. They're now 10x more represented than they should be, but this was required to stop all the tantrums from the previous year.

Looks like all of these inane awards are just another platform for leftist bullshit and the spread of their racist agendas (which is ironic for people who claim to hate racism).

And? Your point?

There should be no merit based reward system... everyone gets a trophy!

And "real" trophies go to... well... not you white boy!

Self flagellate and beat the white privilege out... 

Progressives ... have established racism in Canadian law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladue_report

Read it and weep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doro said:

Not that I watch The Brit Awards, but it came up in the new today about how it's so progressive so it caught my attention.

Apparently, last year there was a major ruckus about it being too many white people. So this year they've decided to make it more equal. Let's see what they did with the nominees!

  • British Female Solo artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Male Solo artist - 1 white, 4 blacks
  • International Female Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • International Male Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Group - 5 whites, no blacks (how controversial!)
  • International Group - 3 whites, 2 blacks

Yup, their version of equality was to just over-represent blacks in their awards. With mixed races included, blacks only make up 5% of the UK population. Yet here they are, making up a whopping 50% of the nominees. They're now 10x more represented than they should be, but this was required to stop all the tantrums from the previous year.

Looks like all of these inane awards are just another platform for leftist bullshit and the spread of their racist agendas (which is ironic for people who claim to hate racism).

No fucks given. It's an award show for music that is generally shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LordVorontur said:

No fucks given. It's an award show for music that is generally shit.

Oaks grow from acorns. This sort of shit won't stop here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doro said:

Oaks grow from acorns. This sort of shit won't stop here.

My thoughts exactly... but different. :P 

I have posted several times here about "riots" and "violence". IMO the pendulum has began to swing (edit: "turn" not "swing" is what I meant) and those indoctrinated into the progressive mindset, and unable to break free of that inertia, will, if history teaches, resist to the point of violence to the forces of change. I see the same turbulence of the 60's looming if Trump succeeds in implementing his agenda and if Europe continues on it's current pendulum swing as well.

I welcome this shift... but I see, potentially, perilous times ahead... who will win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LordVorontur said:

Meanwhile, in a supposed civilized country, which has a Prime Minister that has stated that it's a country that has to work for everyone in it:

http://www.thecanary.co/2017/03/07/more-people-come-forward-in-the-dwp-kill-yourself-scandal/

I'm really not surprised about this behaviour from the DWP. I was on JSA for a while after a redundancy, and having to deal with the people in the Jobcentre was infuriating. Patronising, spiteful, and clueless are words that spring to mind regarding their staff. I can't imagine how much worse it is for people who are actually suffering and faced with what amounts to a tax-paid firing squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Doro said:

I'm really not surprised about this behaviour from the DWP. I was on JSA for a while after a redundancy, and having to deal with the people in the Jobcentre was infuriating. Patronising, spiteful, and clueless are words that spring to mind regarding their staff. I can't imagine how much worse it is for people who are actually suffering and faced with what amounts to a tax-paid firing squad.

This kinda shit is the vast majority of the calls I take from day to day.

Issues with benefits, sanctions for no good reasons, mandatory reconsiderations and appeals. We have a Representative at my bureau who does ESA and PIP tribunals(and sometimes Child DLA), and she is in the 90s on percentage of winning appeals and overturning decisions by the DWP. It's very very rare that she loses a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parliament terror...

Stiff upper lip, lads.

Find those responsible and give 'em some Rule Britannia right up the ass... Allahu Akbar indeed...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Parliament terror...

Stiff upper lip, lads.

Find those responsible and give 'em some Rule Britannia right up the ass... Allahu Akbar indeed...

 

 

One of them died, thankfully. Sadly, he was treated by medics, they should've just let the cunt bleed out.

Sad for the other 3 who died.

 

The guy has already been named by non-media types as a Hate preacher. No need to guess which religion he purports to represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LordVorontur said:

One of them died, thankfully. Sadly, he was treated by medics, they should've just let the cunt bleed out.

Sad for the other 3 who died.

 

The guy has already been named by non-media types as a Hate preacher. No need to guess which religion he purports to represent.

Rare for the hate preacher to actually commit the atrocities themselves. Usually they just get some other insane idiot to do what they tell them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LordVorontur said:

One of them died, thankfully. Sadly, he was treated by medics, they should've just let the cunt bleed out.

Sad for the other 3 who died.

 

The guy has already been named by non-media types as a Hate preacher. No need to guess which religion he purports to represent.

The name being mentioned is for a man who is in jail, so not likely to be him.  

So far we know nothing about the suspect nor their motives, best not to jump to conclusions like Channel 4 news did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The name being mentioned is for a man who is in jail, so not likely to be him.  

So far we know nothing about the suspect nor their motives, best not to jump to conclusions like Channel 4 news did

I've seen a picture of the injured shooter and he was definitely "Asian" (and for the non-politically correct world, by that I mean Arab/Middle-eastern/Pakistani, not Oriental or the like). It's not too far a stretch to guess the motive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cossieuk said:

The name being mentioned is for a man who is in jail, so not likely to be him.  

So far we know nothing about the suspect nor their motives, best not to jump to conclusions like Channel 4 news did

The attacker was known to the Police, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LordVorontur said:

The attacker was known to the Police, apparently.

They always are. You'd think by now they'd figure out a pattern, but I guess they don't want to seem prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London always impresses me with how quick it responds to shit like this, I was visiting a client not too far from Westminster when this all happened and the response was so fast. Roads were closed, helicopters in the air, police and armed officers descend on the place all in no time at all.

The response of Londoners themselves is always the same, stoicism and a general feeling of being pissed off, rather than any real sense of fear.

90% of the time I'll moan about London but sometimes it impresses the hell out of me how this massive, busy, overcrowded, aging, sprawl of a place just functions like a well oiled machine.

It's had a fair bit of practice of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London but still impressive none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LordVorontur said:

The attacker was known to the Police, apparently.

Seems he has a number of convictions for assault, GBH, carrying a knife etc the last being in 2003.  He was also investigated a number of years ago by MI5 but was not part of any current investigation.

8 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

London always impresses me with how quick it responds to shit like this, I was visiting a client not too far from Westminster when this all happened and the response was so fast. Roads were closed, helicopters in the air, police and armed officers descend on the place all in no time at all.

The response of Londoners themselves is always the same, stoicism and a general feeling of being pissed off, rather than any real sense of fear.

90% of the time I'll moan about London but sometimes it impresses the hell out of me how this massive, busy, overcrowded, aging, sprawl of a place just functions like a well oiled machine.

It's had a fair bit of practice of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London but still impressive none the less.

Agreed the response was impressive.  Also the response of Tobias Ellwood MP, who try to save the policeman is due respect.  He had no idea what was going on, if the attack was continuing or not but he spent 15 minutes doing CPR.

As for those criticising the medics that tried to save the attackers life, there job is to treat anyone that needs treating, not to judge, not to guess who has done what and ignore those they think dont deserve treatment.  Also it is always better to take these people alive, they can provide intelligence services with information that may help stop other attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge sacked for trolling people on online news stories

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-39575463

"Recorder Jason Dunn-Shaw, of Maidstone Chambers in Kent, is understood to have called one man a "donkey" and others "narrow-minded and bigoted". He also accused others of commenting "without thinking things through"."

I mean, fuck, he belongs behind bars. That mad man is a danger to the entire planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now