| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Whos law?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Topic ClosedWhos law?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 17:28

Not missionaries, my non-very-illustrated friend. I know the history of the Americas quite well, and these same customs used to exist all over the Americas. For instance, the last human sacrifice of the Mapuches in Chile was in the 1960's during the Valdivia earthquake (the major ever) and tsunami that devasted the region. They killed a child to calm down the forces of nature.

What to do in these cases? Proclaim the beauty of the ancestral custom of ritual murder? Punish people that don't know what they are doing?

Well, my country just told very clear the next ones will go to jail, and that was it.

Amazonian Indians comitte infanticide as a routine. That should stop NOW.

 

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 17:55
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

About arbitrary and irrational laws: today a court in Bangkok, thailand, sentenced a member of the opposition to 18 years in prison for insulting the king. This is really an obsolete kind of law that really should not belong in our so called rational and modern world.
 
Lese majeste is hardly what one would call an arbitrary or irrational law, since I doubt any nation is ready to abandon its definitions of treason. Sometimes, I do wonder if you have ever grasped the meaning of an organized society or the conceptualization of the state as a projection of social cohesion, Carch. And, somehow I perceive that this smugness over "Carch knows best" is but a manifestation of traditional European "airs" when it comes to other societies. yet, I do wonder how this little tidbit from the EU and the European Parliament is any different from what the Thai's perceive as intolerable social behavior:
 
"Insults, slander, defamation and contempt" are sub category crimes against the open category crime of "offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia."
 
Don't worry Carch, I will not seek a warrant for your arrest despite the overwhelming evidence gleaned from these threads...


Edited by drgonzaga - 28 Aug 2009 at 17:56
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 18:14

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Stephen Corry from the human rights organisation Survival International, who has worked many years with aboriginal peoples, explaining the lies and propaganda about alleged infanticide among Native Americans.

About the propaganda film Hakani:

 

Hakani is a film produced by the American fundamentalist missionary organisation Youth With a Mission.

  

It claims to be the true story of a Brazilian Indian child called Hakani who was supposedly buried alive by her tribe, the Suruwaha.

In fact, the film was faked, and even the missionaries who produced it admit there is no way to verify what they say happened.

 
Hakani-paving a road to hell
 

In this Q&A, Survivals director Stephen Corry explains why Survival is against Hakani.

Extracts below:

You object to the film Hakani. Why?

Stephen Corry: It is faked. It puts together footage from many different Indian tribes and uses trick photography to make its point. It wasn’t filmed in an Indian community, the earth covering the childrens faces is actually chocolate cake, and the Indians in the film were paid as actors.

The filmmakers say it is a re-enactment, not a fake. How do you respond?

Stephen Corry: It is presented as entirely real. The opening title of the complete film reads, A true story, and only at the very end is the viewer told it is a re-enactment. The trailer, which has been seen by far more people, doesn not mention it at all. If it were broadcast here, that would be mandatory.

 

If [the infanticide] happened as portrayed, it is an extraordinary isolated case. After decades of working in Amazonia, we know of no Indian peoples where parents are told to kill their children. It just does not happen.

Why oppose the film if it is just trying to stop infanticide?

Stephen Corry: The film and its message are harmful. They focus on what they claim happens routinely in Indian communities, but it does not. It incites feelings of hatred against Indians. Look at the comments on the YouTube site, things like, So get rid of these native tribes. They suck, and, Those amazon mother f**'ers burrying (sic) little kids, kill them all. The filmmakers should be ashamed of all the harm this film is doing to the people they are trying to help.

It is propaganda to bolster the evangelical campaign for a very dangerous principle, the so-called Muwaji law, which has been presented to the Brazilian Congress.

What is that?

The Muwaji law focuses on what it calls traditional practices and says what the state and citizens must do about them. It says that if anyone thinks there is a risk of harmful traditional practices, they must report it. If they do not, they are liable to imprisonment. The authorities must intervene and remove the children and/or their parents. All this because someone, anyone, a missionary for example, claims there is some risk.

 

You can read more about this issue on:

 

http://www.survival-international.org/about/hakani

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Aug 2009 at 18:21
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 18:20
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
Lese majeste is hardly what one would call an arbitrary or irrational law, since I doubt any nation is ready to abandon its definitions of treason. Sometimes, I do wonder if you have ever grasped the meaning of an organized society or the conceptualization of the state as a projection of social cohesion, Carch. And, somehow I perceive that this smugness over "Carch knows best" is but a manifestation of traditional European "airs" when it comes to other societies. yet, I do wonder how this little tidbit from the EU and the European Parliament is any different from what the Thai's perceive as intolerable social behavior:
 
"Insults, slander, defamation and contempt" are sub category crimes against the open category crime of "offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia."
 
Don't worry Carch, I will not seek a warrant for your arrest despite the overwhelming evidence gleaned from these threads...
 
I d not oppose of laws, just irrational and absurd laws where people are sentenced to totally grotesque punishments for just small things. And it do not seem that the court in this case had even heard about any principles of free speech.
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 18:25
"Principles of Free Speech"? Oh boy! That's a good one...how about slander and libel?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 18:30

A king represents a system, a political entity, and in places with fredom of speech one is allowed to critizise such systems and entities.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 18:48
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

A king represents a system, a political entity, and in places with fredom of speech one is allowed to critizise such systems and entities.
 
You abstract yourself into naught but vaporous fuming and I would suggest you refrain from any tours of Bangkok since I do believe you might cause massive rioting by uttering such nonsense. You should also attempt to understand that kingship in Thai culture is a bit more than having some tipsy Bernadotte quaffing a few with the usual suspects in Swedish politics.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 19:08
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Stephen Corry from the human rights organisation Survival International,

 
I bet you are a founder of Survaval Inc. Confused
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

who has worked many years with aboriginal peoples, explaining the lies and propaganda about alleged infanticide among Native Americans.
 
If you believe in "Survival Incorporated", of course.
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

About the propaganda film Hakani:
 
So, do you deny infanticide exists?
 
Or do you know infanticide is for real, but you want to protect the "traditional" practise?
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 19:34
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
You abstract yourself into naught but vaporous fuming and I would suggest you refrain from any tours of Bangkok since I do believe you might cause massive rioting by uttering such nonsense. You should also attempt to understand that kingship in Thai culture is a bit more than having some tipsy Bernadotte quaffing a few with the usual suspects in Swedish politics.
 
Well, some countries still have totally irrational, arbitrary and, many times, inhuman laws, others have not. Hopefully the legal systems will evolve and more and more come closer to the Declaration of Human Righs and principles of equality and freedom of speech.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 19:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  
So, do you deny infanticide exists?
 
Or do you know infanticide is for real, but you want to protect the "traditional" practise?
 
Some crazy people who can commit crimes exist in all human societies. But to condemn the cultures of the natives and indulge in slander campaigns against them, spreading exaggerations, lies and loose rumours is just detestable.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 20:28
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  
So, do you deny infanticide exists?
 
Or do you know infanticide is for real, but you want to protect the "traditional" practise?
 
Some crazy people who can commit crimes exist in all human societies. But to condemn the cultures of the natives and indulge in slander campaigns against them, spreading exaggerations, lies and loose rumours is just detestable.
 
You have problems on reading, don't you?
 
I ask clearly:
 
So, do you deny infanticide exists? (ANSWER Yes or No)
 
Or do you know infanticide is for real, but you want to protect the "traditional" practise? (ANSWER Yes or No)
 
(By the way: native culture is weaving, foods, handcrafts... not killing people. This late practise has to be forbidden; protecting it is a crime)
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 23:05
As I said, there can be criminals also among native Americans but it is not an integral part of their culture, as the anti indian propagandists claim, as it is not an integral part of Brazilian mainstream culture to exterminate street children (even if one can sometimes be lead to believe the later seeing the scoope of it and the authorities passivity in doing something about it).

Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Aug 2009 at 23:06
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 23:36
Answer the questions!!! You avoid them like a fish. Don't be afraid to do so. Define what you believe.
 
I asked clearly:
 
So, do you deny infanticide exists? (ANSWER Yes or No)
 
Or do you know infanticide is for real, but you want to protect the "traditional" practise? (ANSWER Yes or No)
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2009 at 11:46
I have explained what I need to explain to you! If you cannot read or understand what I am writing then suit yourself.

Edited by Carcharodon - 29 Aug 2009 at 13:03
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2009 at 14:28
And so closes the thread until the two combattants resume their skirmishing on other bloody fields of honor!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2009 at 16:34
I see Omar has given up on his unavailing efforts to keep this thread to its point, and drgonzaga hasn't had much luck either.
 
The answer to the question "who's law" cannot possibly be based on the ethical merits of any given law or legal  system, but only on consideration of political/social structures. A social structure is in effect defined by its laws: in particular it's membership is defined by its laws. A member therefore is bound by the law(s) of the society(ies) he belongs to, and from which he derives his membership benefits.
 
Who determines or should determine the laws of a particular society is a different question. But neither question has anzthing to do with which laws are 'better' than others in some absolute sense.
 
(Of course some laws can be considered better than others for meeting a specific purpose, but that again is a different issue.)
  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2009 at 16:42
Well, I do not know if I can agree. In the long run I think laws must be more and more adapted to some form of international norm that hopefully will stem from thoughts as the kind one sees in the Declaration of Human Rights. The arbitrariness of todays laws when some can behead people for doing things that are no issue at all in other countries will not do in a more and more interconnected world. And laws that to much contradicts an international norm of justice or ethics will be a hinder for a country in its international relations and also generate a stream of refugees to other countries with laws that are more in tune with international rights and ethics.

Edited by Carcharodon - 29 Aug 2009 at 16:44
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2009 at 16:43
PS I'm also not sure what the thread is doing in modern history, since it obviously has universal relevance.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 06:48
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

I have explained what I need to explain to you! If you cannot read or understand what I am writing then suit yourself.
 
You have avoided to answer two simple questions. That say a lot.
 
I asked clearly:
 
So, do you deny infanticide exists? (ANSWER Yes or No)
 
Or do you know infanticide is for real, but you want to protect the "traditional" practise? (ANSWER Yes or No)
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 10:40
And you read my answer: most of the stories of infanticide are lies and agiprop spread to justify oppression, displacement and assimilation of the indians into Latino slum-culture!

Edited by Carcharodon - 30 Aug 2009 at 10:42
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 13:39
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, I do not know if I can agree. In the long run I think laws must be more and more adapted to some form of international norm that hopefully will stem from thoughts as the kind one sees in the Declaration of Human Rights.
But that's making so many assumptions and confusing so many issues as to be virtual nonsense. There's no reason why the American Medical Association should have the same laws as the Marylebone Cricket Club. 
Quote
The arbitrariness of todays laws when some can behead people for doing things that are no issue at all in other countries will not do in a more and more interconnected world.
All laws are at base arbitrary.
Quote
And laws that to much contradicts an international norm of justice or ethics will be a hinder for a country in its international relations and also generate a stream of refugees to other countries with laws that are more in tune with international rights and ethics.
Insofar as someone is a member of the global community then the laws of the global community, if any[1], should apply to him. 
 
Basically you just seem to be saying that everyone should conform to the behaviour you would like to see them conform to. What you're not doing is advancing anything towards answering the question 'who's law?' other than 'mine'.
 
[1] 'That is, if there is any such thing as a global community, and if such a community has any laws.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 13:42
If someone can't get this discussion back on topic, I'm going to close it.
 
Whether anyone ever anywhere committed infanticide has nothing to do with anything. If you want to raise it as a topic then find a proper home for it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 14:07

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But that's making so many assumptions and confusing so many issues as to be virtual nonsense. There's no reason why the American Medical Association should have the same laws as the Marylebone Cricket Club. 

 

But if there could be at least some standardization of laws it would probably have a stabilizing effect in an international perspective.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

All laws are at base arbitrary.

 

But at least one can even out the arbitrariness somewhat and try to abolish the most insane laws and those who are in violence with international declarations on human rights.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Basically you just seem to be saying that everyone should conform to the behaviour you would like to see them conform to. What you're not doing is advancing anything towards answering the question who's law? other than mine.

 

The UN declaration of Human Rights could be a starting point in the creation of laws, and if more countries adapted to such a norm, for sure it would be to some positive effect.

 

And no laws are mine. Many countries have actually signed the UN treaties but are still not following them.

 

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 30 Aug 2009 at 14:09
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 16:07
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

And you read my answer: most of the stories of infanticide are lies and agiprop spread to justify oppression, displacement and assimilation of the indians into Latino slum-culture! .
 
Let me interpret your confussing answer, that you say you have already answered.
 
So, do you deny infanticide exists? (ANSWER Yes or No)
 
From the first frase I must deduce than if most are lies some are not.
So your answer was:
 
Yes. Infanticide exist
 
 
 
Or do you know infanticide is for real, but you want to protect the "traditional" practise? (ANSWER Yes or No)
 
 
From you answer above I read (or interpret)
 
Keep them out of the Western values (Latino slum culture)
 
Isn't it right?
Should I assume you want to protect the "traditional" practise of infanticide, then? Keeping then unpoluted, and killing children as they wish?
 
Yes, understanding you is quite complicated, specially because you aren't consistent in your though.
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 30 Aug 2009 at 16:15
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 18:02
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

If someone can't get this discussion back on topic, I'm going to close it.
 
Whether anyone ever anywhere committed infanticide has nothing to do with anything. If you want to raise it as a topic then find a proper home for it.
 
Obviously your post meant nothing to those among us who are only concerned with their own mental (not intellectual) masturbation.
 
Close the thread, Graham.  They were advised.
 
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 19:02
For my part I like to continue discussing laws so I shall not more discuss the topic of infanticide in this thread. It can be made in some other thread where it has some relevance. But the matter of laws is interesting.

Edited by Carcharodon - 30 Aug 2009 at 19:05
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 19:04
Well, I will forget the topic of infanticide, given it is agreed all people should follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no matter what culture they come from. Indians of the Amazon shouldn't be an exception to it.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 21:03
Interestingly, in the last decades of the 19th century, the topic of "who's law" was causing quite a furor among certain intellectuals in Germany, and had much to do with the Judaeo-Christian concept of the Decalogue as the foundation for all laws in terms of the ethical and the moral. Now, I am not talking of current socio-political hysteria in certain sections of the American body politics since the 1960s, but instead referencing the impact of German archaeology in Mesopotamia between 1880-1910 [one of the reasons one must go to Berlin to view the Ishtar Gate] and the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi by French archaeologists in 1901. One might entertain the concept that this archaeological ephemera brought forth the first ravings on the subject of "who's law" and did lay the foundation for much of the intellectual Anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish meanderings typical of early 20th century Modernism (and yes a good dose of German pomposity as well). Certainly, the topic of this thread was the centerpiece of Friedrich Delitszch's Babel und Bibel that took life as lectures delivered to Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1902.
 
Now as to all of this peroration on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, please keep in mind that political statements are not laws and that rights are not autoctonous but flow from the recognition not only of responsibilities but as a consequence of an "eternal" Truth. Somehow, I do not believe Carch will soon be hard at work in refurbishing the Temple of Reason.Cool
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 17:58
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
Now as to all of this peroration on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, please keep in mind that political statements are not laws and that rights are not autoctonous but flow from the recognition not only of responsibilities but as a consequence of an "eternal" Truth. Somehow, I do not believe Carch will soon be hard at work in refurbishing the Temple of Reason.Cool
 


Maybe questions of what kind of laws and whos laws always have to be readressed in a changing world, where laws founded in obsolete values or in religious superstition become more and more of a burden for the people who are affected by them, for the countries that uphold them and in a wider perspective for the whole international community.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 23:19
There you go again..."religious superstition", "obsolete values" and other shimmering mackerels that neither address the subject at hand or contribute to the furtherance of any discussion. The subject is governance and the premises that underlie society's common consent...if and when there is a global empire then perorate on but not until then...
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.