Heels Part 3

85 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2010-11-30 10:00

Bookish Agrarian

Stuart_Parker wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. In complete good faith- as one of the only babblers to actually, you know, see the posters in situ- I posted about my actual experiences. I am not the only one who saw them as mocking and funny.

Nobody here is taking the position that those not offended by the posters really were offended and are lying to us. What we have done is put forward the view that a significant portion of our base would be offended by them. I get that some people found them funny and lighthearted; what I don't get is how some people having that experience is supposed to invalidate the experiences and interpretations of others.

Quote:
Not by a long shot. I don't and can't speak for other babblers. Your attempt to link them and me in a thread I didn't post in is rhetorically childish, but typical based on my 6 years on babble.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about here. To whom am I linking you? You chose to stand behind remind's insulting treatment of me and throw in some of your own; this is consistent with your behaviour in every other thread in which the three of us interact. How is my observation that this is what you are doing "childish"?

Quote:
I provided my best guess as to what they were.

And I disagreed with (a) your guess and (b) the idea that any one interpretation of the posters can invalidate how they are seen by others. What the posters are inheres in the subjective experience of their viewers not in the intentions behind their creators. As I said upthread, I am convinced that the posters were an honest mistake by Horwath's cadre who are individuals I firmly believe are feminists.

But I think this new narrative that the posters were never intended for public consumption at all strains credulity. You don't put up posters in your head office and in the public halls of your provincial council meeting if they're some kind of in-joke. These are places frequented by media and interested members of the public. I might disagree with the current leadership crew but even I wouldn't suggest that they were such amateurs that they were prominently displaying materials to the media that they had actually produced as an inside joke.

Quote:
I don't know how many times I have to say that they were not the centre of anything at Council.

And I don't know how many times those disagreeing with you have said, "we never said they were; stop putting words in our mouths." This is the kind of strawman argumentation that makes me wonder why I even respond to you.

Quote:
Instead what there was 4 lonely little posters sitting on easel thingies. That's it.

It's nice to know that the party has the time and resources to invest in producing glossy, expensive, enormous promotional materials each with a print run of 1.

I have no idea what you are going on about, because you are now just making things up and inferring comments made to others as being directed at you. You and others clearly chastized Sunday Hat and remind for not understanding why the posters WERE sexist, not why you and others might THINK they are sexist. Big difference between the two. One is pompous, arrogant and sexist, the other is an actual discussion.

And your claim I am putting words in anyone's mouth is disingenous to steal Cueballs word. These entire three threads have been about how these posters symbolized a dramatic shift to the right, how this was the new NDP message, how this was how the NDP was going to frame the next election, how the NDP was now in favour of right wing slash and burn economics, how the NDP was turning its back on the legacy of Tommy Douglas and on and on and on. None of which is true. If it was the posters would have played a promenient role, been referenced in speeches, playing on the big screens and so on. It didn't happen. All that happened is that at a provincial council meeting a few posters were set on easel thingies that a bunch of people found amusing.

How expensive would these posters be? Based on experience a few hundred bucks at MOST. Probably far less. The photos would have been part of a larger shoot, the printing is minimal these days and again only 4 or 5 posters were made. The most expensive component was probably dragging them up the escalator. So please knock it off with the moving goalposts and just making up more stuff to rationalize an over the top, unfactual pile on.

Tue, 2010-11-30 10:04

#53

Cueball

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Cueball wrote:

I think it is a bit disingenuous to intimate that Laxer is "preening" when his statement about his past efforts to help the NDP were in the context of being challenged on his willingness to put his money were his mouth is.

In point of fact, my comments are largely drawn from experiences I had on the Pantalone campaign. One thing that astonished me is that many Canadians, in particular immigrant Canadians I met had no idea that the NDP was on the left of anything. It seems to me that "Left' messaging has become so buried in attempts to look to be part of the mainstream and uncontroversial center, that many people are hardly to be blamed for not being able to locate the NDP program.

Simply saying that Pantalone was on "the left" drew in many people I met who were not from mainstream anglo society.

I was refering to the comments he made about being friends with all of caucus and half the executive- which had nothing to do with anything in the context of the post.

So based on one municpal campaign in Toronto you are able to draw conclusions about how the NDP is viewed in the entire province in the context of provincial politics. That's a good trick. I'm impressed.

No actually, all that I have said is entirely based on my experiences being politically active in Toronto for 30 years in various capacities. And in fact, I have been clear all along that I have been talking about Toronto, and emphasizing the importance of this constituency in the provincial elections.

I thought it was pretty much a given that Toronto may not be everything in Ontario, but that it is a critical constituency. We are on the same page here, or are we proposing that the NDP or the Liberals think they can win based on the rest of the province excluding Toronto? Only the Progressive Conservatives have a chance of pulling off that trick... or perhaps you disagree on that, as well?

Are you thinking that the NDP might shift base and win on rural and small city riding alone, and this kind of promotion is aimed to fit into a new grand strategy?

Tue, 2010-11-30 10:14

#54

Bookish Agrarian

No, but what you said was based largely on my experience in the Pantelone campaign, so strangely I thought you meant by that you were basing your comments on the Pantelone campaign.

I am not dismissing that Toronto is important- nor can I even see how you could draw that conclusion. I do think it is less important than some make it- which is basically it is all that matters (sort of the mirror of the Hudak universe). But you would have to be delusional to think that any part of the province, including the largest urban centre, was not critically important to the health of our society, economy, environment and the future of this province.

I am still surprised no one brought up fiscal issues with you and how the NDP is perceived. Certainly it was a narrartive of the election in attacks on Miller. Based on my over 30 years of canvassing that is odd and unusual- including amongst many workers, but I take your word for it and agree with your overall point that the NDP has much work to do in the communities you mentioned.

And again the posters do not reflect a grand strategy. They were 4 rather smallish posters sitting on easel thingies with no reference made to them during the entire provincial council meeting.

Tue, 2010-11-30 10:44

#55

Cueball

Actually, what I said about these posters was this:

Quote:
Obviously they were looking for something to try and claim the high ground on "fiscal responsibility".I figure they had this brainstorming session, and the short listed 20 slogans, then narrowed that down to five using a focus group and this is what they got. Then the put them up in the hallway to see how people reacted.

That said, its a good indication of were their head is at. They are looking for something to combat the Ford factor. There problem is that they think it was Ford's "messaging" that got him elected.

From the last thread. In other words I didn't think they were that significant. The amount of defensiveness of the criticism of these posters is one of the things driving this discussion. They aren't that significant. Nor are they any good, on a number of level, beyond simple messaging.

They don't actually need to be defended.

Tue, 2010-11-30 10:55

#56

Bookish Agrarian

All I was commenting on above was your reference to a 'new grand strategy'. Which 4 posters could hardly be construed as. I assumed you were talking about the posters as reflective of some 'new grand strategy'. If not my apologies. Although if that is the case I am not sure what you meant by the term 'new grand strategy'.

Tue, 2010-11-30 11:15

#57

Catchfire

ndpman wrote:
The fact that most on this board are so appalled by them proves that they are bound to find appeal with the larger group of voters who tend to shy away from left wing "wackoism."

Hi ndpman. Welcome back for your semi-annual visit. Your above post shows contempt for this board, its members and its mandate. It's not allowed. If you should come back in six months and renew your abuse, you won't be allowed back. Thanks.

And Sunday Hat, it appears to me that your adolescent gotcha attempt was emphatically rebuffed (at least by those who haven't yet been completely disenchanted by electoral politics because of "strategies" like the posters which prompted these threads, and have since moved their efforts elsewhere so as to effect actual change), and I don't know if you'll be back for awhile, but just so's we're clear, the kind of disdain you've shown for babble won't be allowed here either.

ETA: remind, lay off your personal attacks on Stuart Parker. In the very post you claim not to have personally attacked him, you personally attack him.

And Stuart: sexism is a one-way street. I don't agree with some of the criticism levelled at you, but it's not sexist. Save your feminist analysis for another thread.

I would like to ask that those who are taking these posters as if they are declarations of an overarching NDP raison d'être to focus their criticisms of the posters themselves. Equally, I would like to ask those who are taking such criticisms as personal, fundamental attacks, to recognize and acknowledge the difference between the two.

Tue, 2010-11-30 11:57

#58

Stuart_Parker

Catchfire wrote:
And Stuart: sexism is a one-way street. I don't agree with some of the criticism levelled at you, but it's not sexist. Save your feminist analysis for another thread.

Thanks for your very helpful intervention, Catchfire. Let me just clarify that I do not believe that attacking me is sexist in any way. I was simply observing that holding male and female posters to different standards of conduct would be sexist. And I am very pleased that in your intervention, you do hold remind to the same standards as other posters; all I was pointing out was that doing otherwise would be sexist. I apologize if I did not make that clear. I do not subscribe the the idea that "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism" are categoies of meaningful discrimination and do not consider that I, a white man, can possibly be victim of racism or sexism under any circumstance. I hope you don't mind if I steal your "one way street" phrase when I argue with my inlaws this Christmas.

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:09

#59

Polunatic2

Quote:
All I've seen so far is the meme that any concern with fiscal prudence makes you right wing.

George Lakoff, a California based linguist has done a lot of work around "framing" issues. He has learned a lot from the successes of the right-wing in moving their agenda forward. He offers some free advice.

Framing 101

Quote:
Tenth, be proactive, not reactive. Play offense, not defense. Practice reframing, every day, on every issue. Don't just say what you believe. Use your frames, not their frames. Use them because they fit the values you believe in.

Eleventh, speak to the progressive base in order to activate the nurturant model of "swing voters." Don't move to the right. Rightward movement hurts in two ways. It alienates the progressive base and it helps conservatives by activating their model in swing voters.

In the context of this discussion, tree hugging, tax and spend, "class war" against business, opposing deficits - these are all right wing frames meant to advance a particular corporate agenda. These posters, whatever their purpose, do not promote progressive values. They reinforce right wing values. They don't work for the left which needs to spell out, repeat and reinforce its own values rather than react to the right.

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:23

#60

Pogo

"Practice reframing, every day, on every issue."

Except managing budgets?

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:27

#61

edmundoconnor

Sunday Hat wrote:

Ah yes. Working the streets hard like the brothers who spend 18 hours a day on rabble.

When was the last time you cats knocked on a door?

Please don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question.

Darn. I hoped it wasn't. I spent upwards of 150 hours+ on my TDSB trustee campaign (knocking on hundreds of doors), all the while while maintaining an active presence on Babble. Progressives can and do multitask.

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:30

#62

Polunatic2

Why is it that the right - Mulroney, Harris, Harper, McGuinty and others - can get away with running sky high deficits again and again? Yet they also get away with reminding voters that Bob Rae ran a deficit in Ontario during one of the worst recessions in the post-war period?

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:41

#63

Kloch

Bookish Agrarian, it would be much easier to take seriously your claim that the posters don't represent anything if it weren't for the fact the people are going to such lengths to defend them.

And for what it's worth, in my own experience, I've never seen or heard of the party creating posters simply as a joke. And if they were a joke, it appears that some people at least, didn't get them because they actually liked them at face value.

In any case, we will never see them again most likely, and people can believe about them what they want. If this was a "trial balloon", and that is what I believe in this case, I'm hoping the reaction was a brutal as it was on babble. Otherwise, it's gonna be a real interesting election.

Tue, 2010-11-30 12:44

#64

Stuart_Parker

Polunatic2 wrote:
Why is it that the right - Mulroney, Harris, Harper, McGuinty and others - can get away with running sky high deficits again and again? Yet they also get away with reminding voters that Bob Rae ran a deficit in Ontario during one of the worst recessions in the post-war period?

It's the same in the US. I wonder if it's a global thing or just local to Anglo America?

Tue, 2010-11-30 13:15

#65

Bookish Agrarian

Kloch wrote:

Bookish Agrarian, it would be much easier to take seriously your claim that the posters don't represent anything if it weren't for the fact the people are going to such lengths to defend them.

And for what it's worth, in my own experience, I've never seen or heard of the party creating posters simply as a joke. And if they were a joke, it appears that some people at least, didn't get them because they actually liked them at face value.

In any case, we will never see them again most likely, and people can believe about them what they want. If this was a "trial balloon", and that is what I believe in this case, I'm hoping the reaction was a brutal as it was on babble. Otherwise, it's gonna be a real interesting election.

Who went to such lengths - well I guess one poster to babble did- but he was banned so I won't discuss that.

All I saw was ridiculous claims made by some, including that there weren't real as well. Others showing comtempt for those babblers who disagreed they meant that the NDP babblers were akin to the Tea Party (which they were able to do with impunity) and some folks trying to correct factually wrong statements and others who liked the posters. So again that's lengths? You must have a short ruler!

Maybe you are right, maybe it was a trial ballon, done in a way I have never, ever seen before. But please stop pretending there is this concerted effort to bury this issue. I am about as un-insider as you can get. What I object to is some of the framing babblers were using about this issue when it was so clearly wrong and unlike my experience as one of the only people on babble to actually see them. Silly me thougth that being someone actually at Council were these were placed might give me a bit of a unique perspective in this discussion, but I was wrong. Never let facts or reality get in the way of a babble pile on.

Tue, 2010-11-30 13:24

#66

JestaKilla

remind wrote:

What a personal attacking dishonest sexist ego maniac you are. Apparently anybody that challenges you is insulting to you. When they correctly point out what a sexist dolt you are, they are being dishonest, eh.

As I have said before thank the Goddess the NDP is well rid of your ilk.

You're certainly attacking him, and from what I have seen, your arguing style seems to be "I HATE YOU YOU SUCK BAD SEXIST PIG THANK THE GODDESS WE'RE RID OF YOUR ILK!!"

You don't seem interested in actually addressing the points that Stuart is raising, the main one of which is- SOME people will perceive these ads (YES, ADS) as sexist, regardless of how much other people don't, and maybe this is a bad thing. But throw more vitriol instead of listening to the message- an important one that, in a couple of years, a bunch of you folks will be hitting your forehead and saying, "D'oh, if only someone had pointed this out to us!"

Speaking as a witch, your crappy attitude is giving pagans a bad name. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the Goddess out of your future invective.

Tue, 2010-11-30 13:34

#67

Bookish Agrarian

nothing suspicous at all about this being your first post.

Tue, 2010-11-30 13:41

#68

JestaKilla

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

nothing suspicous at all about this being your first post.

"Suspicious?" What exactly do you suspect me of?

I'm here calling out what I perceive as silly close-mindedness backed up by someone that is throwing terms from my religion at it as invective. If I were a Christian and someone said "Thank Jesus you're gone!" I'd have the same attitude: NOT APPROPRIATE to use religion in politics, especially in a way that doesn't serve any constructive purpose. The only difference between the "Thank the Goddess we don't have to put up with you!" and Fred Phelps' bullshit is a matter of scale.

If I am suspected of preferring to keep religion out of politics-

If I am suspected of wanting to keep my religion from becoming known for hateful speech-

If I am suspected of wanting to see reasonable arguments rather than "YUO SEXIST PIG!!1!!"-

Guilty as charged, then.

Tue, 2010-11-30 13:43

#69

JestaKilla

Also, I note that nobody has addressed the issue at hand- that SOME PEOPLE are going to find these offensive and sexist, REGARDLESS of whether the people on this forum do. Isn't that the real issue at hand? Or is someone going to label me a fascist sexist pig capitalist scum that we're glad to be rid of the ilk of just based on my three posts (including this one) so far and disregard the question?

I know- let's compare something (or someone- maybe Stuart?) to Hitler, that will persuade everyone!

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:04

#70

Cueball

Polunatic2 wrote:

George Lakoff, a California based linguist has done a lot of work around "framing" issues. He has learned a lot from the successes of the right-wing in moving their agenda forward. He offers some free advice.

Framing 101
Quote:
Tenth, be proactive, not reactive. Play offense, not defense. Practice reframing, every day, on every issue. Don't just say what you believe. Use your frames, not their frames. Use them because they fit the values you believe in.

Eleventh, speak to the progressive base in order to activate the nurturant model of "swing voters." Don't move to the right. Rightward movement hurts in two ways. It alienates the progressive base and it helps conservatives by activating their model in swing voters.

In the context of this discussion, tree hugging, tax and spend, "class war" against business, opposing deficits - these are all right wing frames meant to advance a particular corporate agenda. These posters, whatever their purpose, do not promote progressive values. They reinforce right wing values. They don't work for the left which needs to spell out, repeat and reinforce its own values rather than react to the right.

On the money.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:11

#71

Stuart_Parker

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

nothing suspicous at all about this being your first post.

Could it be that this individual is somehow involved in one of the five Facebook threads about these posters in which I am currently involved on my and Michael Laxer's pages? Could it be a person with whom Laxer or somebody else from these threads has been discussing this debate? Could it be that they are a poster in the thread about this issue on the other web forum where I post about politics? Could it be that this person is a friend of my girlfriend who was spitting mad about the posters last night when she was talking on the phone with friends back in Toronto? Could it be that this individual is a rabble lurker who decided to get an ID after watching all this nonsense?

Could be... could be...I'll try to find out which, just to keep you happy. Or you could just ask them yourself.

BTW, welcome jesta.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:25

#72

JestaKilla

Stuart_Parker wrote:

Could it be that this individual is somehow involved in one of the five Facebook threads about these posters in which I am currently involved on my and Michael Laxer's pages? Could it be a person with whom Laxer or somebody else from these threads has been discussing this debate? Could it be that they are a poster in the thread about this issue on the other web forum where I post about politics? Could it be that this person is a friend of my girlfriend who was spitting mad about the posters last night when she was talking on the phone with friends back in Toronto? Could it be that this individual is a rabble lurker who decided to get an ID after watching all this nonsense?

Could be... could be...I'll try to find out which, just to keep you happy. Or you could just ask them yourself.

BTW, welcome jesta.

Thanks!

And to answer the question- two of the things you listed as "could be's" are.

But does it matter where I come from? Is this discussion only open to supporters of the posters or something? It is not much of a discussion when everyone agrees, don't you think?

Please note, too, that I am not saying the posters in questions ARE sexist, were INTENDED TO BE sexist or will be seen as sexist by EVERYONE... but the fact remains, they will be, and have already been, seen as sexist by SOME.

I mean, really. "I can do man-stuff in heels" doesn't seem like a very progressive slogan to me, and that's exactly how these posters read.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:35

#73

ndpman

Catchfire wrote:

Hi ndpman. Welcome back for your semi-annual visit. Your above post shows contempt for this board, its members and its mandate. It's not allowed. If you should come back in six months and renew your abuse, you won't be allowed back. Thanks.

Hi Catchfire,

Or should I say Censorfire? A semi annual visit is about all the time I can muster from my busy life of activism to chime in on this misery board. Ban me if you wish but know that the truth is a bitter pill and I am but the teacher who delivers the lesson. See ya never?

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:39

#74

remind

Catchfire wrote:
remind, lay off your personal attacks on Stuart Parker. In the very post you claim not to have personally attacked him, you personally attack him.

You are quite correct I did, in direct response to his personal attacks against me, and his lies stating I had personally attacked him. As you noted, it was the first time I did so, but yet you allow him to get away with his fabrications and personal attacks, and yet chastize me. Please do some examination of why that is.

You are also correct, I should not have let his sexism and baiting get to me so much that I named him publically for what he is.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:47

#75

Catchfire

Hi JestaKiller, welcome to babble. I hope you see that your first contribution is not constructive.I realize that this is one of those threads which get everyone riled up, but please enter our community with a bit more humility and respect. Thanks.

Signed,

Censorfire

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:50

#76

Cueball

I like it. Go for the name change! Heh.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:52

#77

Cueball

ndpman wrote:

Enough already. The posters are a success. The fact that most on this board are so appalled by them proves that they are bound to find appeal with the larger group of voters who tend to shy away from left wing "wackoism." Their substance attempts to take a shot at some of the negative stereotypes associated with the traditional societal view that many erroneously hold concerning the ndp and politics in general. i.e. females in power, left wingers as incompetent fiscal managers, aggressively environmentalist to the detriment of progress etc. They are a bit risqué but these are desperate times and messaging must be put into place. Ontario is increasingly embracing right wing ideologies as witnessed in the municipal politics in Toronto, Provincial politics with Hudak's popularity and Federal politics with the continued move towards the Harper regime. (see two federal by election wins and one right on Toronto's Liberal doorstep in Vaughn). If we have learned anything it is that if society is going right, then the NDP must appear to come towards the center or else risk further alienation and marginalization as an extremist protest movement with no real hope of forming government. It is fine and dandy to have these wonderful left wing principles but if you can't get elected or at least into a power positions the left wing movement of the ndp becomes merely a social club of downtrodden complainers. Support your party and leadership, spend less time complaining on this board at every which way the wind blows and get out there and sell a membership.

Forgot to mention that the "not you grandfathers NDP" is a bit offensive and should be stricken from the ad as it is a tad overkill and we should be proud of our roots.

Abject surrender is never a pretty sight. Just happy that charchters like you weren't in command at Queenston Heights.

You do know that Smitherman lost to Rob Ford? Your strategy, pitching from the right on issues, while trying to be rhetorically progressive went down like a lead balloon. In fact, getting on the fiscal conservative bandwagon and singing on the "balanced budget" chorus only helped lay out the red carpet for Rob's steam roller.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:52

#78

Caissa

I prefer Censorfire 451.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:58

#79

JestaKilla

Catchfire wrote:

Hi JestaKiller, welcome to babble. I hope you see that your first contribution is not constructive.I realize that this is one of those threads which get everyone riled up, but please enter our community with a bit more humility and respect. Thanks.

Signed,

Censorfire

It's certainly not my intent to be disrespectful; I apologize for any offense.

That said, I maintain that my point is sound. Just because some people like the posters doesn't mean that others won't perceive them as sexist. That perception alone is an issue, regardless of whether it's "true" that they are sexist or not.

I also stand by my "Keep my religion out of your political food fight" request, respectfully.

Tue, 2010-11-30 14:59

#80

Polunatic2

I'm not riled up. In fact, I've tried to add some substantive background material that looks at communications.

Here's another excellent link on how "progressives" should attempt to communicate.

The Harper Index - The Conservative frame

Here's an example.

Boxing in future governments is part of Harper plan

Quote:
The federal budget debate illustrates one of a number of ways in which the Harper government has tied the hands of future governments, forced them to follow his policies, and prevent them from doing anything new at all.

"The Conservatives' three budgets have left Ottawa financially incapable of offering any new national social program like affordable housing, higher education or day care," wrote Winnipeg columnist Frances Russell in a column that appeared in StraightGoods.ca. "Although overall spending went up, mostly on the military, measures were taken to deplete revenues to the point future governments' hands will be tied unless they raise taxes or run deficits, both prescriptions for political suicide."

Tue, 2010-11-30 15:09

#81

Life, the unive...

Okay now I get it. Personal attacks are okay as long as a moderator agrees with the person doing it, or a moderator can attack another babbler as long as they frame in the terms of calling someone on a persoanl attack as was done in post 56. That makes things so much clearer on how things really work on babble these days. And you dare to call yourself a progressive.

Tue, 2010-11-30 15:15

#82

Catchfire

Actually, I call myself a "Habs fan." But tonight I'm not takin' no calls 'cause I'll be dancin'.

Tue, 2010-11-30 15:22

#83

Cueball

Even George Smitherman calls himself a "progressive" these days,

Tue, 2010-11-30 15:28

#84

Life, the unive...

So a bully like Catchfire, incapable of self-examination, should fit right in I guess.

Tue, 2010-11-30 15:35

#85

Catchfire

I've decided you've used up your leeway. Mr. LUE. I won't take this abuse anymore. You're getting three days off. If you decide you'd like to come back after your suspension, you won't be able to talk to the mods like this anymore. So find a more respectful and constructive way of voicing your "criticism," but currently, after perusiing your recent posting history, I don't see how you contribute positively to the rabble community. At any rate, this is my place of work, and I'm not going to subject myself to your abusive temper tantrums anymore.

ETA. And this thread has become so acrimonious that I don't see how it can be useful anymore. I think we "get" what folk think about the Horwath posters. If someone would like to open a new thread about the broader question of branding and framing, or about the NDP's actual policies and campaign, that woud be fine. No more threads about these posters until there is a new development. In the interests of community. Tx.

Pages

Topic locked