Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

I told you.


Recommended Posts

I'm sick of masks myself now, so hardly ever go into shops and never travel on public transport anymore. I can do without all of it tbh.

Consumerism is dead to me in August 2020.

 

And last night I heard that Handcock says that "masks won't be needed in offices"................

How does any of this make any sense?  We have crazy mentalists running the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

The mask is no different to a seatbelt.

The mask is different to a seatbelt - in several ways.

One important way is that there was extensive study of the merits and demerits of the requiring seatbelt wearing... it wasn't imposed as a knee-jerk reaction and 180-degree U-turn on advice the same organizations had been issuing only days earlier.

It is a straw-man argument to claim that objecting to mandatory mask wearing is motivated by being unwilling to deal with the inconvenience or expense.

Edited by A.steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A.steve said:

The mask is different to a seatbelt - in several ways.

One important way is that there was extensive study of the merits and demerits of the requiring seatbelt wearing... it wasn't imposed as a knee-jerk reaction and 180-degree U-turn on advice the same organizations had been issuing only days earlier.

It is a straw-man argument to claim that objecting to mandatory mask wearing is motivated by being unwilling to deal with the inconvenience or expense.

I suspect not so much of a straw man as over-simplifying and over-generalising and being conditioned to not question anything done if the word "risk" is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A.steve said:

The mask is different to a seatbelt - in several ways.

One important way is that there was extensive study of the merits and demerits of the requiring seatbelt wearing... it wasn't imposed as a knee-jerk reaction and 180-degree U-turn on advice the same organizations had been issuing only days earlier.

It is a straw-man argument to claim that objecting to mandatory mask wearing is motivated by being unwilling to deal with the inconvenience or expense.

You didn't answer the question - can't be bothered, vague nonesense about personal choice or sticking it to the system?

Seatbelt is a very valid comparison as still large numbers flout it claiming a million reasons shouldn't have to or 'medical opinion changed / airbags replaced / risks lower if do x'.

There is solid evidence 2m distancing reduces risk. There is also solid realworld evidence that 2m distancing gets breached regularly due to practicalities of life. See factory workers carsharing after wearing PPE at work.

The mask is to reduce risk of transmission or are doctors suggesting it for a laugh?

As for risk averse - that military career of mine was mistake then and given I'm on a site contrary to popular thinking I'm hardly a group thinker or robot.

It's about taking a bit of personal responsibility and thinking just maybe if there's a chance I could have it asymptomatically, it might be the grown-up thing to wear a mask and not give it to someone who ends up in an ICU. Like not eating nuts on a flight if there's someone allergic - may inconvenience you but theoretically makes their day at bit less tragic

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

You didn't answer the question - can't be bothered, vague nonesense about personal choice or sticking it to the system?

You're right, I didn't answer your leading question.  None of those things.

26 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

The mask is to reduce risk of transmission or are doctors suggesting it for a laugh?

I suspect that those doctors who are suggesting it are doing so because they are paid by a public sector organisation that is obliged to implement government policy.  I do not believe, for one second, these are unbiased independent judgements from relevant experts.  Those who are concerned for their own careers will avoid "making waves".

I stand by my assertion that you're levelling straw-man arguments at those who oppose masks.  I recognise, however, Riedquat's position that this issue is intimately related to a miscomprehension about the nature of risk.  I'm reminded that the 'Great' Doctor Furguson recommended a mass cull of cattle in ~2001... and, some time later, the necessity of this, after the event, was called into question.  It was bad enough when his over-reaction (based upon flawed analysis) resulted in the destruction of cattle.  A couple of decades on and the stakes are much higher.

Risk is a funny beast.  I strongly suspect that it is fundamentally misunderstood by the vast majority of the population.  Here, I'm not just talking about those people who get the IQ question requiring an appreciation of Bayesian thinking wrong... but those who get it "right" - too.  In short: risk does not conform to a metric space - which makes it difficult to reason about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this front.. Having had dinner last night with a surgeon who works in a london hospital.. His points ref masks

-almost certainly help prevent infection if used correctly 

-90% of the public are not wearing them correctly 

-the way the public use them, constantly reusing surgical masks which are never meant to be, touching the mask repeatedly after touching surfaces on the tube etc. Risks spreading infection(s) more than stopping them. 

I expect the studies done are under the assumption masks are used as is in a medical setting... Mrs miggins with her trusty 2 month old floral cloth mask, is not observing surgical hygiene 

Edited by captainb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, A.steve said:

 Risk is a funny beast.  I strongly suspect that it is fundamentally misunderstood by the vast majority of the population.  Here, I'm not just talking about those people who get the IQ question requiring an appreciation of Bayesian thinking wrong... but those who get it "right" - too.  In short: risk does not conform to a metric space - which makes it difficult to reason about.

Broadly speaking there are three categories of people when it comes to risk and rules - those who pay them no attention at all, those who go to the letter of the rule and won't accept any risk, and those inbetween. The first lot are a problem, I doubt there's any disagreement with that. The second ones are too - when you're in a potentially dangerous situation those who stick to the rulebook are apt to be both unnecessarily restricted and blind to any dangers not covered (and their only answer when that is raised is to try to cover everything). Whether or not those in between are an issue or not very much depends upon the individual. They get marginalised by the simpletons on either side though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, captainb said:

On this front.. Having had dinner last night with a surgeon who works in a london hospital.. His points ref masks

-almost certainly help prevent infection if used correctly 

-90% of the public are not wearing them correctly 

-the way the public use them, constantly reusing surgical masks which are never meant to be, touching the mask repeatedly after touching surfaces on the tube etc. Risks spreading infection(s) more than stopping them. 

I expect the studies done are under the assumption masks are used as is in a medical setting... Mrs miggins with her trusty 2 month old floral cloth mask, is not observing surgical hygiene 

The biggest contribution masks make is reducing the amount of virus wearers are spreading. Several reports have said that this amounts to 80% of their benefit. Touching the masks etc will not reduce this part.  

Nobody is claiming that they offer anything like full protection but they do help to reduce transmission and may enable opening up to proceed much further than it otherwise could without tipping R over 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The biggest contribution masks make is reducing the amount of virus wearers are spreading. Several reports have said that this amounts to 80% of their benefit. Touching the masks etc will not reduce this part.  

Nobody is claiming that they offer anything like full protection but they do help to reduce transmission and may enable opening up to proceed much further than it otherwise could without tipping R over 1.

Yep. Although how many people do you see actually wearing them properly over the nose and mouth? Rather than just the mouth? Or hanging even lower down. 

Not suggesting they are useless just that in "public usage" rather than clinical useage their efficacy will be greatly reduced 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The biggest contribution masks make is reducing the amount of virus wearers are spreading. Several reports have said that this amounts to 80% of their benefit. Touching the masks etc will not reduce this part.  

Nobody is claiming that they offer anything like full protection but they do help to reduce transmission and may enable opening up to proceed much further than it otherwise could without tipping R over 

This - if something is effective when used properly but even only 5% more effective than bob-all then it is an improvement.

As has been demonstrated time and again by studies most folks don't wash their hands properly, but we still encourage it, because even a little improvement is worthwhile and far better educating people to get better at it.

As for new science do you adhere to 2m rule? That has been modelled globally and is based on best science models from Feb. It evolves. There is a no risk distance of 6m, but that is impractical. Then there's a no social distancing space invader zone of high risk. But 1m - 2m is the goldilocks economic viability vs risk benefit zone. However mask wearing is promoted where this is not practically achievable to push as much benefit as possible. Also as the virus lingers on surfaces if they cough on something and nobody nearby for an hr it is still possible to inadvertantly transfer - hence the suite of measures not just 2m will do.

Now as for all the unjust villification and its all medical nonsense argument and herd mentality - do you queue for things?

Almost certainly you do - now the personal inconvenience of queuing is done by people as a societal norm, not enshrined by legal statute or decree, because we all take it that a little inconvenience is worth it to help out everyone. You may be a triathlete who could outsprint everyone to the front, or only have 2min job but behind someone with more complex needs, but invariably you wait.

Like masks a queue represents an inconvenience to you but potential benefit to others. Like masks if you decide to take an individual 'heroic' individual approach, not take the group think and march to the front of the queue, they may see you as a bit of a selfish infividual who thinks their own inconvenience is more important than any potential benefit to others. You may even find that your custom is refused.

Now given you believe there is no medical benefit I think the queue is quite apt. Societal norms are for the benefit of society as a whole.

As an aside if someone has to cough near you do you prefer they cover their mouth with their hand, offering a modicum of protection and thought for those around, or just do as they please?

I'm genuinely intrigued that you seem to think taking any steps that may potential help others, are easy to implement, should be cast aside if they are a bit of a ball-ache to you / you view as an imposition. Or am I totally wrong and that's not your position and you'd care to explain in less than a paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

This - if something is effective when used properly but even only 5% more effective than bob-all then it is an improvement.

As has been demonstrated time and again by studies most folks don't wash their hands properly, but we still encourage it, because even a little improvement is worthwhile and far better educating people to get better at it.

As for new science do you adhere to 2m rule? That has been modelled globally and is based on best science models from Feb. It evolves. There is a no risk distance of 6m, but that is impractical. Then there's a no social distancing space invader zone of high risk. But 1m - 2m is the goldilocks economic viability vs risk benefit zone. However mask wearing is promoted where this is not practically achievable to push as much benefit as possible. Also as the virus lingers on surfaces if they cough on something and nobody nearby for an hr it is still possible to inadvertantly transfer - hence the suite of measures not just 2m will do.

Now as for all the unjust villification and its all medical nonsense argument and herd mentality - do you queue for things?

Almost certainly you do - now the personal inconvenience of queuing is done by people as a societal norm, not enshrined by legal statute or decree, because we all take it that a little inconvenience is worth it to help out everyone. You may be a triathlete who could outsprint everyone to the front, or only have 2min job but behind someone with more complex needs, but invariably you wait.

Like masks a queue represents an inconvenience to you but potential benefit to others. Like masks if you decide to take an individual 'heroic' individual approach, not take the group think and march to the front of the queue, they may see you as a bit of a selfish infividual who thinks their own inconvenience is more important than any potential benefit to others. You may even find that your custom is refused.

Now given you believe there is no medical benefit I think the queue is quite apt. Societal norms are for the benefit of society as a whole.

As an aside if someone has to cough near you do you prefer they cover their mouth with their hand, offering a modicum of protection and thought for those around, or just do as they please?

I'm genuinely intrigued that you seem to think taking any steps that may potential help others, are easy to implement, should be cast aside if they are a bit of a ball-ache to you / you view as an imposition. Or am I totally wrong and that's not your position and you'd care to explain in less than a paragraph.

Not sure if that was aimed at me.. But jn one para rather than your 12.

-No masks are not useless. 

-Yes i wear one (properly) 

-Medical use is not nonsense if that is the basis of their effectiveness is based on. Therefore that is what should be the aim. 

-masks as witnessed by myself at least (accept poor sample) being worn around tube etc in london are being worn in anything but a medical style use. 

-greater emphasis and education required on how to wear a mask. How to handle a mask. Importance of washing. To get anything like the benefit observed in studies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Riedquat said:

I suspect not so much of a straw man as over-simplifying and over-generalising and being conditioned to not question anything done if the word "risk" is used.

Btw I am a tech dive instructor part time, cave diver, ex freefall skydiver.

I do personal and team risk assessments all the time and am fully understand risk - both personal and group, probably better than most in a practical environment, including people who cite Bayesian thinking and internet articles.

There is no such thing as risk-free however balancing risk and practicality is the name of the game and embracing solutions or taking mitigating steps / having a plan for what-if is the best we can do.

For example - risk free option is don't enter the cave, take up snooker.

Total risk option - do it in a Borat mankini with a snorkel.

The most practical solution will lie in between those two and is evaluated on a case by case basis.

Furthermore the level of acceptable risk is a personal assessment, however when it affects the team we go with the option everyone is comfortable with, not just each individual going I'll do it my way. 

This highlights one of the key principles of risk planning - anyone and everyone is responsible for risk and needs to call out risk not just watch it unfold. 

Same as I always highlight there are no individuals when it comes to taking risks - under the header Jack B$$$ards get rescued by a team and put them in danger. Be that Mountain Rescue, medical or fire service.

As for increasing risk if used incorrectly argument - so is most equipment - I can cause a snag risk by improperly routing dive hoses, can kill myself if take wrong dive gas mix at depth because I didn't label or use at right depth, wrong fire extinguisher type can matters worse. But you can learn how to use it properly can't you and be s better team player.

In the context of the mask wearing - society is effectively the team as this is a countrywide risk planning. Is the mask a simple and implementable measure ( yes ), is it more effective than doing nothing ( highly likely ) but is it a panacea ( of course not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, captainb said:

Not sure if that was aimed at me.. But jn one para rather than your 12.

-No masks are not useless. 

-Yes i wear one (properly) 

-Medical use is not nonsense if that is the basis of their effectiveness is based on. Therefore that is what should be the aim. 

-masks as witnessed by myself at least (accept poor sample) being worn around tube etc in london are being worn in anything but a medical style use. 

-greater emphasis and education required on how to wear a mask. How to handle a mask. Importance of washing. To get anything like the benefit observed in studies. 

No was agreeing not kicking off at you.

If something used improperly but still has some potential benefit you don't junk it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

There is no such thing as risk-free however balancing risk and practicality is the name of the game and embracing solutions or taking mitigating steps / having a plan for what-if is the best we can do.

Try telling that to a lot of people... And also try explaining to some that what is an acceptable level of risk is subjective - some simply can't get their head around the idea that others would prefer to live with a marginally still actually low level of risk than put up with all the patronising, nannying ********. And because of that there's been a serious boy who cried wolf effect that means very sensible precautions are often not taken as seriously as they should be too.

Quote

In the context of the mask wearing - society is effectively the team as this is a countrywide risk planning. Is the mask a simple and implementable measure ( yes ), is it more effective than doing nothing ( highly likely ) but is it a panacea ( of course not)

It is largely a panacea, sorry. Almost all there to say "look, we're doing something!" It's those who have got so used to risk being drummed in to them all the time that they'll accept anything that has made them lap up the mask thing. In some circumstances they're a good idea (e.g. on trains and buses, or anywhere where several people are going to be pretty close together for more than a minute or two), on many others the evidence is, at best, scant and circumstantial. That's part of the problem, the mixing with sensible and ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

I'm genuinely intrigued as to why he wants to not wear a mask? I'm also intrigued that he's surprised this might elicit a strong response from folks.

There's your challenge then! How can you criticise someone if you can't empathise with (which doesn't mean agree with or sympathise) their position?

As I said masks might have some effect if you're cramming people together (which doesn't mean "someone walked past me just under 2 m away! Nooooo!") Better to just avoid cramming people together though. And don't go too overboard when considering what "cramming together" actually means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Try telling that to a lot of people... And also try explaining to some that what is an acceptable level of risk is subjective - some simply can't get their head around the idea that others would prefer to live with a marginally still actually low level of risk than put up with all the patronising, nannying ********. And because of that there's been a serious boy who cried wolf effect that means very sensible precautions are often not taken as seriously as they should be too.

It is largely a panacea, sorry. Almost all there to say "look, we're doing something!" It's those who have got so used to risk being drummed in to them all the time that they'll accept anything that has made them lap up the mask thing. In some circumstances they're a good idea (e.g. on trains and buses, or anywhere where several people are going to be pretty close together for more than a minute or two), on many others the evidence is, at best, scant and circumstantial. That's part of the problem, the mixing with sensible and ridiculous.

And as I said at the end in the context of this particular risk plan you are part of a wider effort. So the team overrules the individual risk or you jeopardise the teams efforts.

Simple example often use - the public toilet. Most of us wash our hands afterwards, some scuzzy individuals don't for whatever reason. Now we all have to touch that same door handle - net result some of the mitigating steps we personally took just got screwed over by one person not.

More importantly that one person just impacted the risk profile of everyone using that door handle, regardless of what they personally did for a time period after.

 Some may regard having to wash hands as nannying, but don't be surprised if you get called out by your peers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

There's your challenge then! How can you criticise someone if you can't empathise with (which doesn't mean agree with or sympathise) their position?

You can question the outcome and action independently of how they arrived at it.

I disagree with the action, I'm trying to work out how he came to this conclusion and so far I've had 'not medically proven & imposition on liberties - "that these individials have a strength of conviction and character that allows them to stand against absurd and damaging authoritarian abuses?" and also the inference that most mask wearers are unthinking drones.

His Gestapo reply to someone asking what would it take to wear a mask was, let's be honest, not doing any favours or showing empathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

It is largely a panacea, sorry. Almost all there to say "look, we're doing something!" It's those who have got so used to risk being drummed in to them all the time that they'll accept anything that has made them lap up the mask thing.

I don't disagree with your sentiment - but I don't think mask wearing is a panacea.  Dictionary defines panacea: "a solution or remedy for all difficulties or diseases" - and, I contend, it is far from that.

I think the "benefit" of wearing masks is to maximise terror and paranoia... while promoting social isolation and driving the maximum number of vulnerable people to consider suicide.  Perhaps we could gleefully track the numbers of people taking their own lives (both directly and indirectly)?  We could then present awards to those regions who convince the maximum proportion of their population that their lives are not worth living.  We could call it the "Maximally Antisocial Munchausen Award".

A major problem with insisting upon innane rules is the "Crying Wolf" effect.  I strongly suspect a significantly larger proportion of people would now default to distrusting the judgement of the authorities.  While being dismissive of today's rules might have little impact, the manner in which it undermines the credibility of authority with respect to health could (very easily) result in dire long-term consequences.

Edited by A.steve
Making it an acronym... because acronyms are cool... even when they're serious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

His Gestapo reply to someone asking what would it take to wear a mask was, let's be honest, not doing any favours or showing empathy.

I don't think it is always optimal to demonstrate empathy in the way some people expect me to do so.

I note that you didn't answer the question - and, in refusing to do so, pehaps you had the opportunity to gleen something of the perspective of at least some of the demographic you were riling against.  Perhaps it didn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

There is no such thing as risk-free however balancing risk and practicality is the name of the game and embracing solutions or taking mitigating steps / having a plan for what-if is the best we can do.

This is something that seems to be missing from society altogether at the moment - it seems that people want to know:

(1) Is this safe or unsafe?

(2) If something goes wrong - who is to blame?  Because someone must be?

They do not seem to be able to comprehend that there is a continuous risk spectrum, and that if a reasonable risk is run, but the outcome is still poor, that's simply an expected outcome and not something meriting blame and compensation.

However, our society and justice system continues to re-inforce the message that things must be 100% safe or someone needs to be sued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

I don't think it is always optimal to demonstrate empathy in the way some people expect me to do so.

I note that you didn't answer the question - and, in refusing to do so, pehaps you had the opportunity to gleen something of the perspective of at least some of the demographic you were riling against.  Perhaps it didn't work.

Steve I didn't answer the Gestapo question as it wasn't directed at me and also it is a general Internet rule that if someone invokes the Nazis or Hitler in a conversation on anything not involving Hitler and the Nazis they have lost the arguement and gone a bit batsh!t crazy. Especially given you think mask wearers were unthinking, yet most Gestapo were fully onboard with what actions they took and aware of the consequences.

Now that notwithstanding - it would take a hell of a lot to get me to sign up to a totalitarian political police force - despite having warn a uniform - because I have in fact countermanded an order that I believed illegal from one of our American cousins - on a training ex but there you go. So likely take a complete about face in my outlook and abandonment of most of my life principles. Likely behavioural modification, mental breakdown and an irrational blaming of a group for my situation.

Having also been to Auschwitz and twice to the Rwandan genocide museum I'm less flippant in how compare things like that tbh

Given your prediliction for railing against false equivalence and strawman-ery comparing mask wearing and the Gestapo is a bit hypocritical.

Now I've answered your question please answer the what would it take to get you to wear a mask / please enlighten why you choose not to?

Final thing and I stress this is not an insult so please read in that context - are you autistic by any chance? Autism isn't an insult but some of your responses fit a similar pattern to how a friend and dive buddy would approach any questioning of him, without seeing perhaps why others may take a dim view when it affects them - he's a great guy and v intelligent but also prone to extreme comparisons, seeming contradictions and thinking anyone who doesn't see his world view is a simpleton.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

However, our society and justice system continues to re-inforce the message that things must be 100% safe or someone needs to be sued

Actually that's overblown in a lot of papers and a common misunderstanding from US litigation efforts and ambulance chasers.

The point of risk mitigation plans is to demonstrate you thought about the risks and planned for what you could forsee. Lack of a plan means jailtime / criminal negligence, gaps in the plan can lead to fines or further training. A decent plan means no comeback, even those waivers don't abdicate the requirement for a proper plan.

You don't need to know every potential scenario, but demonstrate good practice, forethought and have a catch-all for what to do in unexpected event. No different than Compliance or IT DR or BCP work. It's why plans might need a loss of power case but not an EMP pulse from thermonuclear detonation clause.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Now that notwithstanding - it would take a hell of a lot to get me to sign up to a totalitarian political police force - despite having warn a uniform - because I have in fact countermanded an order that I believed illegal from one of our American cousins - on a training ex but there you go. So likely take a complete about face in my outlook and abandonment of most of my life principles. Likely behavioural modification, mental breakdown and an irrational blaming of a group for my situation.

Having also been to Auschwitz and twice to the Rwandan genocide museum I'm less flippant in how compare things like that tbh

Given your prediliction for railing against false equivalence and strawman-ery comparing mask wearing and the Gestapo is a bit hypocritical.

Now I've answered your question please answer the what would it take to get you to wear a mask / please enlighten why you choose not to?

It would take a hell of a lot to have me sign up to badgering people about wearing masks - or to wear one where it is not absolutely necessary (because so doing perpetuates a pernicious abuse of authority to the serious detriment of all of society).  My reasons are broadly similar to your reasons for not wanting to wear the uniform (though I don't ask you respect my idea as a consequence of me having visited geographic locations).  I am opposed to promoting disgust. In that direction lies the change in perspective necessary for horrific atrocities.

I accept that I chose an emotive response (perhaps, if you insist, a hyperbole) to make my point - but I don't think it either irrelevant or invalid.

I don't think I'm autistic. I've certainly never been diagnosed as such.  That said, I'm aware of the argument that autism is a grey-scale rather than a label - so, in that sense, perhaps everyone - myself included - is, in some way, autistic.  I accept, but not without sadness, I probably am 'unusual'. I'm aware of many relevant social experiments... for example, the Conformity experiments by Solomon Asch. I simply can't imagine myself being swayed in the way the results suggest that 75% of the subjects were.  I've never found myself 'going with the flow' or 'taking the easy choice to avoid embarrassment'...  I can admit that I find it a little difficult to fully empathise with those who surrender their own judgement (and their own sense of right and wrong) while pursuing social approval.  I feel that it is a moral and ethical imperative to be true to yourself - to accept the consequences if you make a mistake... but to stand by your convictions if they are challenged. The alternative is to embrace cowardice... though, of course, I don't intend that as an insult... and recognise that being a coward might be in the interests of one's own health and well-being... in the short-term, at least.

(P.S. The irony of the phrase "batshit crazy" in the context of SARS-Cov-2 and its 'illegal wet market' origin story did not pass me by.  You got a wry smile from me - but you wouldn't have noticed that if you're picturing me wearing a face-bra.)

Edited by A.steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.