Zimmerman Charged

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Maniac Craniac, Apr 11, 2012.

  1. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    This is a fair comment. Maybe I didn't communicate what I meant to there: I don't think he will assert, or even meant to assert, any of these.

    But he did assert that racism by black people against white people is "larger." Here are some ways of operationalizing the variable he probably won't adopt. So how would he operationalize it?
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's up to him, of course, but I'd note that you seem to be primarily concerned with the practical disadvantage (or lack thereof) of such a phenomenon, whereas another comparison would simply be depth of feeling or pervasiveness of such feeling within relevant cultures. But if so, have fun arguing about how one would quantify such a thing, because that would be pretty difficult.
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Oh, I don't know.....how about this for a start?

    Farrakhan Praises Pat Buchanan as a ‘Great Man’ & Warns Whites: ‘Unless You Change, Your End Has Come’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

    Can you honestly say with a straight face that if a white person said that about blacks, there wouldn't be a firestorm of controversy, hysterical front-page headlines, furious condemnation from politicians, and a federal civil rights investigation?
  4. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I apologize, my browser keeps giving me an error and takes away the HTML coding that utilizes my links, I'm not cleaning it up again only to have the browser error out. Here are the places that I got my data from to go with my response to you below: The Census Quick Facts Page and from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports

    Between 1976 and 2005, Blacks, 12.6% of the population in the last census, committed 52.2% of all homicides.So you can easily see from data that the Census and the FBI provided that over the 30-year period, Blacks committed murder at about 7.33 times the white rate. (Whites here include Hispanics which I find pretty funny considering the PC times we live in where everyone not White gets special treatment, except when we can use them to make ourselves look worse, ala George Zimmerman who is clearly not White, maybe if his name was Jorge Zimmerman?) Of the murders committed by someone that the victim does not know, on average - 18.77% involved blacks killing a white, while in 5.08% of the cases a white killed a black person. Blacks are therefore nearly 3.7 times more likely to kill a white than a white to kill a black.

    And it gets even worse when you break down the criminality of the individual person. There are about 5.6 times more whites (72.4%) than blacks (12.6%). So very few blacks kill 3.7 times more whites then five times as many whites kill Blacks. Thus, an individual black person is about twenty times more likely to kill a white then an individual white is to kill a black person. And considering that Hispanic whites commit a larger percentage of crime then non-Hispanic whites (63.7%) the numbers get even bigger compared to non-Hispanic Whites.Feel free to check my math using the tables I provided, I might be off but not by much. It looks to me like Blacks are about 7 times more likely to kill a white person, compared to whites killing blacks (homicide tables). I’m looking for more numbers that differentiate between whites and Hispanics to provide a clearer picture .

    Here are even more numbers, in 2005, the last year that the DOJ statistics are available, you have a startling total of 10,285 blacks who committed a murder. Since 8.8% of these were a black killing a white there were (assuming only one death per murderer) 905 whites killed, almost 2.5 per day (which is double the rate of killings by CCW holders over a 6 year period). Also in 2005, again assuming one killing per perpetrator, 267 blacks were murdered by whites (3.2% of 8,350 killings). If you call a white killing a black racism, then I call a black killing a white racism as well.Breaking this down even further and you get an even more startling picture since crime is generally a young man’s game.

    You will find (again only looking at the data in my tables from .gov websites) that within the 52.2% of U.S. murders committed by blacks if you look at the age of the killers you will find that the murders are committed by blacks aged 15-25. Which means that we have a small percentage (about 2% of blacks) committing over half of the murders in this country. When I looked at these numbers my conclusion is that Blacks are more racist towards Whites than we are to them.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2012
  5. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Then there is this quote from an interview given by the BPP's Chief:

    In an online interview this week, Michelle spoke openly of her frustration with what she calls the massive racial problem in this country, especially over the Trayvon Martin case. She admits that her sadness over the case was overwhelming and that she spoke harshly during the online segment.

    Let me tell you, the things that's about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these ---- people. It has been long overdue. My prize right now this evening ... is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, for George Zimmerman. You feel me?
  6. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    Remember the time a black person who was a regional rural development official for the USDA seemed, from limited evidence, not even to be calling for white people's 'end to come,' but to have told one white person to go get a white lawyer for help saving his farm rather than her? There were more or less all of these things.

    There are white supremacist churches that have been operating openly enough for decades. People expect them to preach white supremacy; there's a small counter-movement (the Southern Poverty Law Center, etc.) that puts a lot of work into opposing them, and a large majority that largely writes them off.

    As to a civil rights investigation, I don't know. A First Amendment defense goes a long way.

    From the information in this Blaze story, at the very least, the university that hosted his speech should investigate. If Farrakhan's speech was racist, they should apologize promptly strongly for hosting it, and they, and other schools and institutions, should go to the wall to prevent ever hosting such a speech again.

    I really don't have the much energy to parse a Louis Farrakhan speech, but, still: In context, the "end has come" passage may not have been addressed to white people generally.

    I think most of us here could say, for instance, that racial discrimination is economically inefficient, and if racists don't change, "their end will come" somehow in the competitive marketplace eventually. For what happens when we assume, see the Shirley Sherrod case above.

    (Am I, or are the people I support, ass-u-ming things about George Zimmerman? No, I don't think so. Latest blog post from my favorite commentator on the Trayvon Martin case, Ta-Nehisi Coates: "We began outraged at the investigation, and deeply troubled by Stand Your Ground. Now we're off on these meta-outrages [on the relevance of hoodies, NBC's incredible editing, Derbyshire's racist lampooning 'The Talk,' etc]. I never thought the point was to 'Make Zimmerman Pay.' Is that where we're going?")
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2012
  7. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    Thank you for pointing out the obvious!
  8. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    Cory, this is what I strongly assert is going on behind the statistics you cite.

    • 1. Numerically, though not proportionally, more homicide victims are white. There are massively more people in the general population who are white.

    Say a community has 90% white cats and 10% black cats.

    The cats are fairly evenly distributed, and when they get into catfights, they choose their targets entirely at random.

    When a black cat gets into that frame of mind and initiates a catfight, nine times out of ten, the target will be a white cat. Nine times out of ten!

    A white cat looking for evidence that seemed to fit a narrative that black cats were targeting whites could build quite a lot of that nine times out of ten, and any number of parallel statistics about scratches, bites, impoundments, etc. In fact all that was going on was random chance, not race-based selection. Of course homicide victims in the human population aren't selected by random chance.

    There's a lot else going on there. The fact that any given given offender's victim is numerically more likely to be white doesn't mean whites are being targeted, particularly when any random person is numerically much more likely to be white. From your own statistics, proportionally, a homicide victim is much more likely to be black; black people are victims of homicide well above their proportion in the general population. Whites are homicide victims at a rate well below their proportion of the general population.

    • 2. Proportionally more homicide offenders are black.

    But their victims are disproportionately also black.

    If black offenders disproportionately target black victims, this does not support a thesis that blacks disportionately target whites.

    • 3. "If you call a white killing a black racism, then I call a black killing a white racism as well."

    I don't call a white killing a black racism, necessarily. The victim could be a random bystander, it could be the stock "drug deal gone bad," etc.

    Here, I'll quote in context, and try to address, every single datum you try to bring to bear.

    Supports point 2. Doesn't support a claim of racism by black people against white people.

    How many are involve black people killing a black person? From your statistics, there are 5.6 times more whites than blacks. If black offenders chose victims they did not in equal proportion to the U.S. population, 18.77 / 5.6 or about 3.3% of this set of murders would be black-on-black.

    I suspect the number is so much higher that it strongly supports a claim black people are the victims of black offenders in much higher proportion to their numbers in the population than white people are.

    If anyone argued that racism is shown because the number of black people killed by white people, in recent years, is higher than the number of white people killed by black people, you would have demolished them. But I don't think anyone has argued this at all.

    If an individual black person is equally or even more likely to kill a black person, this doesn't demonstrate black-against-white racism at all.

    I'll trust your math. It's the interpretation that'll get you.

    If you're arguing that black people are biased against white people, based on homicide statistics, you should compare the rate at which black offenders kill white victims with the rate at which they kill black or other victims.

    Then we could still get into, say, whether the rates at which black, or white or any other, homicide offenders targeted victims represented sentiment in the general population of their race. I kind of think not. And then we - I gather you're white; it happens I am - would have to have our community's sentiments judged by what white murders do too. Kind of against the spirit of your signature, which I like.

    Okay, this is really comparing unlike things.

    Multiple murders aren't, I think, common enough among all murders in the U.S. that we probably shouldn't, working with data from all murders in the U.S., act as if they don't exist!

    Again, I don't, and I don't think you've addressed the premises of almost any argument that white-against-black racism is still a large problem in the U.S. at all.

    I agree that crime is generally a young man's game. I don't see how this changes anything to strengthen your case.

    Okay, we agree that the percentage of black people who are murderers is very small.

    You seem to be saying the percentage of black people who are murders is 2%? Wha? I don't believe this and think there must have been a mistake somewhere along the line. Source?

    But even, God, if this were so, it would still only support point 2 above, and not the claim that black people are racist against white people.

    That's not what anything here actually shows.
  9. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    Mr. Zimmerman has a white father and a Hispanic mother.
  10. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    The first thing I found from a Google search for her speech was that she "tearfully apologized," The Tampa Tribune reports. "If anyone had heard that, that anger weighed so heavy on my heart I literally snapped," Williams said. "I snapped to the point I was even crying when I made those comments."

    If the Chief of Staff of the freaking New Black Panther Party is tearfully apologizing for a statement, the original statement sure as heck can't be taken as representative of thinking among black Americans.
  11. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    Sorry, "they did not" is an editing artifact. This should read:

    How many are involve black people killing a black person? From your statistics, there are 5.6 times more whites than blacks. If black offenders chose victims in equal proportion to the U.S. population, 18.77 / 5.6 or about 3.3% of this set of murders would be black-on-black.
  12. DLer

    DLer New Member

  13. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    Bleh. Multiple murders are, I think, common enough…
  14. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Jonathan, thanks for trying to answer my assertion, I really appreciate your thorough and thoughtful response to what I presented. I'm not leading you anywhere or trying to play a gotcha, just trying to understand how you view crime.

    Having been the victim of one racist black on white attack personally(after a basketball game I was struck in the head with a beer bottle - received stitches) and having to leave the Baltimore Harbor last 4th of July with my family because a large group of ALL BLACK youths started to menace (young boy was hit with round from a gun and another was stabbed) I am rejecting the Original White Sin hypothesis or what some people refer to as white guilt. The data that I see says one thing to me and you interpet one another way.

    1. Do you believe that blacks can be racist towards whites just as whites can be racist towards blacks? 2. What is more troubling to you; white on black crime, black on white crime, or black on black crime?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2012
  15. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    Black people can certainly be racist against white.

    There's an organized black supremacist movement. It should be monitored for incitements to violence, etc., but I confidently believe it's marginal and as unrepresentative of black people as the white supremacist movement is of white people.

    There are individual actions motivated by prejudice, discrimination, hate, fear. It's awful and wrong that you suffered from one; I'm sorry to hear. :(

    Do I think the extent of any of these is greater?

    Polluting a creek or executing a mortgage swindle through fraudulent misrepresentation can be criminal, but I think we're looking at traditional interpersonal violent crime.

    There are subcultures with high rates of violent crime, and circles that accept or encourage violent crime. We know there are street gang and street crime subcultures that are especially strong among black Americans.

    There are criminal subcultures that draw very heavily to entirely from white people, too: biker gangs, the Aryan Brotherhood and other racial street and prison gangs, European organized crime, rural oxycontin and other drug rings. This is a terribly preliminary wisp of evidence, but the mugshots within a Google Image search for 'meth lab arrest' seem overwhelmingly white.

    If there's a group of menacing young men out in the U.S. or Canada after a big loss, or a win, in a hockey game, or a soccer game, or for Spring Break, they could be a lot more menacing than almost any other crowd, and they're probably overwhelmingly white.

    On June 15, 2011, the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, miles from the U.S. and sharing all sorts of its culture, looked like this, thanks to a serious hockey riot:

    Via Wikimedia.

    The population of Greater Vancouver is more than 40% visible minority. I think films and photographs suggested the rioters who set this off were massively, overwhelmingly white.

    And: You and I will never have to wear stuff like this the way black people have to wear so much of the stuff a very tiny minority of people of their skin color have done.

    All this said. Maybe that small minority of violent criminals is larger, as a percentage of total black people, than the small minority of violent criminals is as a percentage of total white people. I think there is a larger share of crime victims among black people than among white people.

    And I think many black Americans are asserting both these things themselves as they work to fight crime in their communities. And their work should reduce levels of black-on-black and black-on-white crime. (And white-on-black, for good measure, as fewer black people are involved in those drug deals gone bad, etc.)

    Do black people or anti-racists or anyone really, broadly, tell white people they should feel guilt or original sin, or is this a straw man a certain type of white reaction against anti-racism has built of the thing?

    Like, 'they got tired of us casting them down as a race, so they're casting us down as a race for it,' like it's a tit-for-tat point-scoring thing, even if that was never the point at all.

    Again to my favorite writer on the Trayvon Martin case, and much else, who posted something related today: "The conservative movement* doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic."

    * Footnote, mine: I think the author is talking about a way of thinking that's widespread in U.S. conservative politics and culture, generally, but that he isn't talking talking about all conservative people, or even all white people in the conservative movement.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2012
  16. mcjon77

    mcjon77 Member

    Sure I can. Because people from Aryan Nations, and other white-supremacists groups say things like that ALL THE TIME. The difference here is because it is being said by someone who has been (self?) anointed as a "black leader" that people get up in arms about it.

    This is the problem. Some external groups proclaims someone a "black leader" (a laughable concept in itself) and then uses their words to show the mindset of the black community. The fact of the matter is that Farakhan does not represent black people. He doesn't even represent a significant number of black people.

    Think about it. Farakhan is head of the Nation of Islam. 95+% of blacks in this country are Christian. Of the small percentage of black muslims, the VAST majority of those are traditional Sunni Muslims. In fact, the Nation of Islam that Farakhan heads isn't even the REAL Nation of Islam of the Malcom X days. The son of the founder of the Nation of Islam, Warith Deen Muhammad, disbanded it, had them renounce their previous racist ideology. So, you have a man who is leader of a small minority, WITHIN a small minority of the African-American community. Yet SOMEHOW, anytime he says something it is supposed to reflect the feelings of the black community. Really?

    I'm from Chicago, the heart of the Nation of Islam power. I can state with certainty that they just are not important. They are just some fringe group that has been rapidly losing ANY relevance since the 90's (and they didn't have much to begin with). He had ONE moment of heavy influence, and that was during the Million Man March back in 1995. Ever since then he has been an afterthought. His organization seems to be disintegrating.

    For instance, back when I was in elementary school, you could see "The Final Call", the Nation of Islam newspaper, being sold all over the South Side of Chicago. By the time I was in high school while this was no longer the case, at least you would see a reasonable amount of his NOI people selling the paper on the streets or at subway stations. Now, you almost never see them anywhere. They just are not around.

    Yet SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY he is always the goto guy to demonstrate "black racism". Is he a black racist? OF COURSE!! But he is of almost no consequence. Why is that? Why is it that there is all this talk about the "New Black Panther Party", which appears to have maybe a hundred members, if that?

    I'm going to speak from the heart here. I KNOW that there are some black folks who's feelings about white people range from outright hatred (an EXTREME minority) to occasional annoyance. I can say with 100% certainty that black racism/prejudice against whites has DECREASED dramatically over the years. Also, black perception of racism being the defining issue that holds blacks back has decreased dramatically over the years.

    Sure, we acknowledge that racism exists. We acknowledge that a history of racism contributed to the poverty experienced by a segment of the black community today. But we also acknowledge that the reason Tyronne is is prison is because he is a crack dealer who shot 2 people, not because there is some vast conspiracy to set him up and keep him oppressed.
  17. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    I'm not going to get into the whole "blacks are more racist than whites" argument too much but I thought I would say this.

    The social acceptability of whites to be racist is very, very, very low except in some geographic areas of the United States that tend to be largely isolated, predominately lower income and rural. Even then blatant hate speech will largely ostracize a person from their peers regardless of how the collective may feel. Why? Because an overwhelming majority of whites don’t feel this way and are very uncomfortable around people who do. It’s uncomfortable, potentially career ending and even if it were in company of people who felt the same way it would still be impolite and low class.

    The social acceptability of blacks being racist towards whites seems to be much more socially acceptable at least within the black community (says the white guy on the outside looking in). Part of this is because of perceived imbalances economically and politically within the U.S. and also because of the perception of ongoing exploitation and repression of minorities (whether these beliefs are true or not are debatable but the perception is very real and palatable).

    I am a little more familiar with Hispanic culture than black culture in the U.S. as my wife is Hispanic, thus my in laws are predominately Hispanic and because I’ve grown up immersed in South American culture. Racism again seems slightly more socially acceptable towards whites and blacks. Hispanics do not seem to be as influenced by “white guilt” that seems to permeate through so much of…for lack of a better term “white America” and have fewer qualms about saying something I would consider racist (among the Mexican “Hispanics”). There is also a lot more “stick together-ness” among Hispanics than whites though again I notice this more among my Mexican origin family members than our South American friends. South Americans, Brazilians in particular seem to be much more racially sensitive. In fact I think they have something like 33 different terms to describe various shades of skin color from very dark to white but the animosity between the races in Brazil do not seem to be nearly on the level of that within the United States. Brazil also has a large African and Caribbean influence comingled with Spanish influence so they are altogether different than Mexicans…which is why I tend not to like terms like “Hispanic” as they are overly simplistic and suggest a monolithic culture…which there is not.

    Anyhow, that’s just my observations. What does this have to do with the Martin case? Nothing, as I do not think race was a factor in this shooting outside of the media hype and profiteering by a few degenerates.
  18. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Excuse me...the "33 different terms for race" is likely incorrect (though I do remember seeing/hearing that somewhere) as the terms for race can also be comingled with terms for socioeconomic status. Mixed races are termed differently as well, where as in the U.S. a person is either "white" or "black", etc. Anyhow this is a topic I find curious but difficult to understand and difficult to really do anything about so I don't spend a lot of time on it.
  19. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    The social acceptability for whites to say flagrantly racist things, maybe.

    Let's accept that human resource professionals in Chicago or Boston, for instance, are unlikely to express a generally negative view of black people, especially at work.

    But if, all the same, they behave like this: what do we call it?
  20. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    I believe in systemic racial inequality...you don't have to convince me of that. But there are two sides to the equation on how that works from what I can see. Let's take the criminal justice system for example. I have no doubt in my mind that blacks in the United States face a different justice system than whites, but I don't think this is just a racial issue but more a socio-economic issue. For example, drug laws...the punishment for possession of crack is much harsher on average that of cocaine. Yet crack is tailored towards a poorer clientele (like meth). Is this racial? I don't think so...but the "crack" image did correspond strongly to the gang banger image of the 1980s and 1990s, becoming the poster child drug of choice for "bad guys".

    Then of course there are the lawyers, middle class people (cocaine users) can afford better drugs and legal representation than lower income folks (meth and crack). Then of course there is the "image" and this impacts a jury and it's also where we get controversial. You have multiple black celebrities who dress like gang members, earned their reputation as gangsters, rapping about crime and are largely celebrated. But they also create an image that burns into people’s minds. Since these guys are trend setters they influence the way others dress, look and sometimes act. When you have a young black male who emulates this image entering the court system he already has an “image” problem in how he dresses, acts and speaks. As a motorcycle enthusiast I see the same thing in the “biker” community when dealing with cops, etc. The image screams “criminal” regardless of whether they are or not.

    People judge others by how they appear; fair or unfair it is human nature. It’s also why I think cases like Casey Anthony allow attractive, white women off the hook for obvious murders. Like black people in America face 2 justice systems, so do men vs. women and for many of the same reasons. Preconceived notions equal jury bias.

    Hiring decisions is another interesting area. I once heard a black comedian joking about why black Americans cannot move up in the corporate world. He said it was due to weird names, etc. He got a lot of laughs of course but there was a hint of truth to it…not because the names are black but because the cultural identity of many within the black community are “different” in a world of manila colored walls and cultural assimilation within a work environment. I do not believe this is due to overt bias but more subtle in that HR people are obsessed with “fit” in the corporate environment.

    But it’s more than that. Black Americans are also disproportionately lower income. This affords fewer higher education opportunities and leads to a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. Corporate jobs require higher education more often than not. If only 18% of a given population that represents 15% of a total population, even remotely qualifies for a job, even if you were to hire half of them (which would be a staggering hire rate) you would still have an obvious disproportionate amount of represented race within the workplace.

    Bill Cosby is a fascinating writer to me. I find him blunt, humorous and sometimes even shocking but always entertaining. One topic he is serious on is education within the black communities. I remember him telling a story about a kid (could have been him, I can’t remember) who hid his school books in pizza boxes so he could get home without getting his butt kicked every time he walked past a certain basketball court. He said these teenagers would beat the snot out of people they thought were “acting white” by studying. Now this was a controversial lecture he gave and I might be able to find it and source it later but no time for now. He was condemning the black communities for labeling “studying” and “hard work in academics” as “acting white”. He went on to note the social necessity of blacks within the United States to stop idolizing basketball players and sports as the only means to get out of poverty but instead to apply some of that same enthusiasm and energy towards getting in school, doing well in business and acquiring leadership positions. Now as an outsider (a white guy who did not grow up in the projects) I cannot tell you if this is true or not. But if there is even an kernel of truth to what Cosby was talking about this points to a cultural issue…and not one necessarily unique among black Americans but that is also shared in some white communities and Hispanic communities as well. Within some Hispanic communities for example, speaking English is “acting white”. Also going to school and studying is second to manual labor and jobs after school. Within rural or lower income white communities you have the same “crab mentality” where anytime someone tries to better themselves, to leave the small town or trailer park or whatever…people start talking, calling them “college boy” or “uppity” or other derisive terms used to socially isolate that person and somehow shame them back into conforming with their environment. It’s a human nature thing, not unique among minorities.

    Unfortunately there is systemic bias towards black Americans in the United States. For some reason however this bias does not translate so pronounced when it comes to Asians, those if Indian or Eastern descent, those of South or Central American descent or even Middle Eastern decent. I think much of this bias is due to popular perceptions created by celebrated popular images or “representatives” if you will. For example do you think Bill Gates is more representative of the image of “white America” than perhaps Chris Gardner is of “black America”? Did you just have to Google Chris Gardner’s name? If you did, you made my case here. If you didn’t do you get my point?

    Some of this is imposed bias. Some of this is self-imposed bias. Where the line is drawn is impossible to see but without a doubt there are in biases that permeate the workforce and justice system. I will say that the permeation in the workforce however is greatly exaggerated in my opinion, as the “system” of bias begins far before the applicant lands in the interview chair. It begins in school, progresses through celebrated cultural definitions of “success” and continues on into college and eventually the workforce. Self-imposed cultural segregation is destructive. Denying the full context of the issue is no less destructive which is largely why I oppose "affirmative action" type rules and legislation. I think they are far more destructive than helpful and definitely convey the wrong message.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2012

Share This Page