| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lindsay Logan
   |
Posted - 2009.01.13 16:01:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Akita T
...is usually zero when they're spouting nonsense.
Just because somebody has an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean we should feel the least bit obligated to respect it without reserve, especially when that viewpoint stems from an acute lack of education, understanding, knowledge or mental acuity.
Actually, quite the contrary, it is a major disservice to the human race as a whole just as for the local society and even the particular person with the opposing viewpoint NOT to point out the glaring defficiencies in his logic.
What I'm probably trying to say, Political Correctness as a concept... it's just bullcrap.
And trying to not hurt somebody's feelings regardless of why... even moreso.
Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart or your wife beautiful, and I can respect that since it hurts nobody.
But when you let your at-best-mediocre wife attend a beauty pageant then get upset she didn't win, now that I can't be possibly expected to respect, that's just silly.
Or worse, when you try to enrol your stupid kids in the same class as the actual smart kids then complain "the education system has a problem", now then we have a serious problem, and all due respect is way, WAY out the window.
Respecting other people's opinions regardless of their quality or veridicity is crap.
And people who try to push that particular viewpoint on the issue are worthy of nothing but contempt, if not downright hatered.
You got a lot of good points. Political Correctness is a horrible trend that is more damaging then good.
And for about the same reasons I do not respect religion in the least. |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 11:44:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side. Unless 2 individuals are presupposing the future in which different projections can be made based on preferences, but even then a disagreement can occur based on something unverified between the two parties on which they are basing their assumptions. When a person attacks in an unrelated way to the subject, dishonesty enters the discussion, someone has been dishonest and uses deformation of character to win their argument. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 12:04:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.
Not necessarily.
Different known "facts" which leads each side to genuinely believe they're both right (and the other part "obviously" wrong) is a much more common cause of disagreements.
Both disagreeing parties might be partially right, they might be both completely wrong, and only sometimes one of them right and the other wrong. |
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 13:03:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.
Not necessarily.
Different known "facts" which leads each side to genuinely believe they're both right (and the other part "obviously" wrong) is a much more common cause of disagreements.
Both disagreeing parties might be partially right, they might be both completely wrong, and only sometimes one of them right and the other wrong.
It very much depends on the nature of the disagreement.
If you're disagreeing about whether there's two or three mars bars left in the biscuit tin then the disagreement is probably based on dishonesty or faulty information.
Most other arguments on the other hand... |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 14:34:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 18/01/2009 14:41:05
Originally by: Akita T
Respecting other people's opinions regardless of their quality or veridicity is crap.
And people who try to push that particular viewpoint on the issue are worthy of nothing but contempt, if not downright hatered.
Sounds like you think you can learn nothing from anybody else, that your opinions at your current state in life are the final and they will never change because of someone else? This is usually a clear indication of lack of life experience. You will meet some people you respect and listen to and learn from, trust me. You are not going to always be right. And even dumb people deserve to be respected. Im not saying you have to agree with them. You can respectfully disagree with them.
There is a reason old people are usually pretty humble about themselfs. A lifetime of experience will teach you things you never expected to learn. 
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 14:44:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Sounds like you think you can learn nothing from anybody else, that your opinions at your current state in life are the final and they will never change because of someone else?
Sounds like you misread 
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 14:50:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 18/01/2009 14:51:08
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Sounds like you think you can learn nothing from anybody else, that your opinions at your current state in life are the final and they will never change because of someone else?
Sounds like you misread
Perhaps. But you should still respect people. Treat others as you want to be treated you know?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 14:58:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/01/2009 15:05:05
Originally by: Jim McGregor
But you should still respect people.
Respect people in general, yes.
Respect the right of other people to have an opinion, yes.
Respect people that consider their opinions factual regardless of evidence to the contrary, no.
Respect people that consider their opinions factual regardless of evidence to the contrary AND on a rampage about how they are right and everybody else wrong, HELL NO.
Quote:
Treat others as you want to be treated you know?
And that's exactly how I expect to be treated too.
Think I speak nonsense, prove me wrong and I'll change my mind 
But accepting everything I say blindly just because you like me (or rejecting everything I say because you hate me), now that's just wrong.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:04:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 18/01/2009 15:04:55
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Jim McGregor
But you should still respect people.
Respect people, yes.
Respect the right of other people to have an opinion, yes.
Respect people that consider their opinions factual regardless of evidence to the contrary, no.
Respect people that consider their opinions factual regardless of evidence to the contrary AND on a rampage about how they are right and everybody else wrong, HELL NO.
Evidence needs interpretation which is subjective. Take 9/11 for example. People dont accept the same evidence as the truth.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:09:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/01/2009 15:12:06
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Evidence needs interpretation which is subjective.
Take 9/11 for example. People dont accept the same evidence as the truth.
And that's why civilized people have arguments and opposing viewpoints, with lengthy discussions about how things can be interpreted and why they should be interpreted one way or another... as opposed to generalized skull-bashing until "the truth" is on the side of whoever's last left standing.
Quote:
Scientists disagree on what is possible. So are you going to treat the other guy without respect because he interprets the evidence differently?
No... it's quite simple.
You're going to treat with respect the people that present their case, take your counter-arguments and try to come up with explanations that would explain their viewpoint in light of your recently presented counter-point.
People who are unable to accept the possibility they might be wrong, people who aren't interested in hearing your counter-point, or in other words people who simply dismiss your counter-arguments on a "but it doesn't fit my theory so it must be wrong" basis... now, those, you DON'T treat with respect.
Simple, isn't it ?
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
|
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:10:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 18/01/2009 15:15:50
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Evidence needs interpretation which is subjective.
Take 9/11 for example. People dont accept the same evidence as the truth.
And that's why civilized people have arguments and opposing viewpoints, with lengthy discussions about how things can be interpreted and why they should be interpreted one way or another... as opposed to generalized skull-bashing until "the truth" is on the side of whoever's last left standing.
Yep, I agree. Its quite rare to see people being able to discuss things here in the forum without skull-bashing though..
Often its about interpretation and what someone think is likely. Lets say you see a light in the sky. Someone thinks its a satellite, someone else thinks its a plane. All you have as objective evidence is that there was a light in the sky. Thats where endless discussions start...
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 18/01/2009 15:12:06
No... it's quite simple.
You're going to treat with respect the people that present their case, take your counter-arguments and try to come up with explanations that would explain their viewpoint in light of your recently presented counter-point.
People who are unable to accept the possibility they might be wrong, people who aren't interested in hearing your counter-point, or in other words people who simply dismiss your counter-arguments on a "but it doesn't fit my theory so it must be wrong" basis... now, those, you DON'T treat with respect.
Simple, isn't it ?
I just dont agree with them but I still treat them with respect. Its also the only way you will get someone to see your point of view. Not treating someone with respect leads to them never admitting they are wrong even if they know they are. :)
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:18:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
I just dont agree with them but I still treat them with steadily decliningrespect.
I agree with the "fixed" version
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:22:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 18/01/2009 15:23:13
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Jim McGregor
I just dont agree with them but I still treat them with steadily decliningrespect.
I agree with the "fixed" version
Yeah, me too. One is only human after all. 
Originally by: Akita T
They would have never admitted they are wrong in the first place anyway, so the only remaining strategy is public humiliation.
Of course, it can backfire in case you are eventually proven to be wrong, but eh, no pain, no gain, right ?
Ive had this happen to me, its not pretty.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:30:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.
Not necessarily.
Different known "facts" which leads each side to genuinely believe they're both right (and the other part "obviously" wrong) is a much more common cause of disagreements.
Both disagreeing parties might be partially right, they might be both completely wrong, and only sometimes one of them right and the other wrong.
If you read past the first line I included your variable.
Originally by: Lance Fighter
This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 00:49:00 -
[105]
Yeah, I wrote that post before your edit but only pressed "post reply" a couple of minutes later... |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 09:37:00 -
[106]
I only respect them if they don't enjoy tax benefits or molest children.
Your cap ship deserves CPR's! |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 09:42:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.
It is trivially obvious that this is untrue.
I like apples; you like cherries. We can honestly disagree over whether cherry pie is better than apple pie.
And if one pie shop does great apple pies but mediocre cherry pies, and another one vice versa, we can honestly disagree over which is the better pie shop.
Obviously the analogy is a little trivial, but you get the idea.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 09:54:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 09:55:51
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.
It is trivially obvious that this is untrue.
I like apples; you like cherries. We can honestly disagree over whether cherry pie is better than apple pie.
And if one pie shop does great apple pies but mediocre cherry pies, and another one vice versa, we can honestly disagree over which is the better pie shop.
Obviously the analogy is a little trivial, but you get the idea.
Having a disagreement over taste preference is dishonest. As that is not something one should really be disagreeing over unless you seek to dominate the other persons preferences. I define a disagreement as 2 sets of facts that do not stack against each other; to use a historical example, Galileo's defiance of the catholic church.
A disagreement is totally different to a preference. Hmmm let me find some reading material.
@ Akita, **** happens :P |
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 11:03:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Akita T
They would have never admitted they are wrong in the first place anyway, so the only remaining strategy is public humiliation.
Of course, it can backfire in case you are eventually proven to be wrong, but eh, no pain, no gain, right ?
Ive had this happen to me, its not pretty.
Don't you hate that
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 11:18:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 09:58:55
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.
It is trivially obvious that this is untrue.
I like apples; you like cherries. We can honestly disagree over whether cherry pie is better than apple pie.
And if one pie shop does great apple pies but mediocre cherry pies, and another one vice versa, we can honestly disagree over which is the better pie shop.
Obviously the analogy is a little trivial, but you get the idea.
Having a disagreement over taste preference is dishonest. As that is not something one should really be disagreeing over unless you seek to dominate the other persons preferences. I define a disagreement as 2 sets of facts that do not stack against each other; to use a historical example, Galileo's defiance of the catholic church.
A disagreement is totally different to a preference. Hmmm let me find some reading material.
@ Akita, **** happens :P
Well you're stretching the definition of "dishonest" a little further than I would care to, but if that's how you view it then you still ahve to take in to account priorities. Different people can - for good, logical and acceptable reasons - have differing priorities, which are often not easily subject to objective comparitive analysis. How do you balance spending money on transport infrastructure vs education, for instance?
|
|
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 12:30:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 12:31:20
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 09:58:55
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.
It is trivially obvious that this is untrue.
I like apples; you like cherries. We can honestly disagree over whether cherry pie is better than apple pie.
And if one pie shop does great apple pies but mediocre cherry pies, and another one vice versa, we can honestly disagree over which is the better pie shop.
Obviously the analogy is a little trivial, but you get the idea.
Having a disagreement over taste preference is dishonest. As that is not something one should really be disagreeing over unless you seek to dominate the other persons preferences. I define a disagreement as 2 sets of facts that do not stack against each other; to use a historical example, Galileo's defiance of the catholic church.
A disagreement is totally different to a preference. Hmmm let me find some reading material.
@ Akita, **** happens :P
Well you're stretching the definition of "dishonest" a little further than I would care to, but if that's how you view it then you still ahve to take in to account priorities. Different people can - for good, logical and acceptable reasons - have differing priorities, which are often not easily subject to objective comparitive analysis. How do you balance spending money on transport infrastructure vs education, for instance?
People should allow for parameters for which they have no stake in, that also effect other people. The individual must take responsibility for knowing when they are pushing arguments based on something irrational or pride. If for example, you do not have the vernacular to articulate the argument and back up your solid counter arguments with verifiable evidence, then you are being dishonest. Tolerance and patience are required for dealing with disagreements where evidence states that both parties have interests that conflict, a prime example being the Eve O forums.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 13:27:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
People should allow for parameters for which they have no stake in, that also effect other people. The individual must take responsibility for knowing when they are pushing arguments based on something irrational or pride. If for example, you do not have the vernacular to articulate the argument and back up your solid counter arguments with verifiable evidence, then you are being dishonest. Tolerance and patience are required for dealing with disagreements where evidence states that both parties have interests that conflict, a prime example being the Eve O forums.
Tolerance and patience are means for resolving disagreements, not for avoiding them in the first place. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be an expert on everything; and even experts in a given field can disagree, so some amateur conscientiously trying to do research in order to avoid a disagreement can hardly be faulted for drawing different conclusions to someone else.
And as the apple pie/cherry pie analogy illustrates, people can bring different axioms to the debate.
Person A can say: freedom is paramount and must not be compromised. Who can argue against freedom?
Person B can say: the safety and wellbeing of children must be our first concern. Who can argue against keeping children safe?
Person C can say: we must never permit injustice to go unpunished. Wo can argue against injustice?
But obviously, freedom, justice and the wellbeing of children must often conflict with each other, despite the fact that every thinks that all 3 are essential. How can you say that Person A and B are dishonest for disagreeing with Person C that justice must always be done?
tl;dr: existence is vastly too complex for such a black and white pronouncement as "all disagreements are the result of dishonesty". That's the kind of insane thinking that fanatics use to cause vast misery, since you're in effect saying that anyone who disagrees with you is evil.
|
Kerosene
Caldari
Emergent Chaos
United Freemen Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 14:26:00 -
[113]
If you don't respect a viewpoint because it is fundamentally incorrect (see religion, global warming, any media sensationalism) then it's quite interesting to be able to argue to your own more valid point. If the opponent's argument is indeed built on the house of cards you think it is then it shouldn't be a problem to convert their way of thinking.
If they still refuse to accept that you're right and they are wrong then disrespect, and a smack up side the head, is due. |
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 14:38:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Kerosene
If you don't respect a viewpoint because it is fundamentally incorrect (see religion, global warming, any media sensationalism) then it's quite interesting to be able to argue to your own more valid point. If the opponent's argument is indeed built on the house of cards you think it is then it shouldn't be a problem to convert their way of thinking.
If they still refuse to accept that you're right and they are wrong then disrespect, and a smack up side the head, is due.
Someone here posted a quote awhile back and I wish I new who the originator was.
"You can not reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into"
It is not dead on, but pretty close to it.
Slade
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 15:20:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Malcanis
Person A can say: freedom is paramount and must not be compromised. Who can argue against freedom?
Person B can say: the safety and wellbeing of children must be our first concern. Who can argue against keeping children safe?
Person C can say: we must never permit injustice to go unpunished. Wo can argue against injustice?
But obviously, freedom, justice and the wellbeing of children must often conflict with each other, despite the fact that every thinks that all 3 are essential. How can you say that Person A and B are dishonest for disagreeing with Person C that justice must always be done?
Freedom, justice and wellbeing of society in general do conflict with eachother. The names of their conflict are Social Services and justice. Justice does not exist when it comes to the Na-zi's of the SS. I can give you many an example of the sheer evil of this fascist and terrorist organisation, proving that your point is, right and wrong at the same time. Those who have felt the immense power of the SS know they are powerless, while those who have not seen to what extent these madmen are willing to go, will argue in their favour.
Now discuss this when it comes to respect: how can one respect an organisation with absolute powers in a society that pretends to be 'democratic'? The society is, obviously, not democratic, as has been proven over and over again, and freedom is only an illusion given to people until it is taken away. |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 17:14:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
People should allow for parameters for which they have no stake in, that also effect other people. The individual must take responsibility for knowing when they are pushing arguments based on something irrational or pride. If for example, you do not have the vernacular to articulate the argument and back up your solid counter arguments with verifiable evidence, then you are being dishonest. Tolerance and patience are required for dealing with disagreements where evidence states that both parties have interests that conflict, a prime example being the Eve O forums.
Tolerance and patience are means for resolving disagreements, not for avoiding them in the first place. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be an expert on everything; and even experts in a given field can disagree, so some amateur conscientiously trying to do research in order to avoid a disagreement can hardly be faulted for drawing different conclusions to someone else.
And as the apple pie/cherry pie analogy illustrates, people can bring different axioms to the debate.
Person A can say: freedom is paramount and must not be compromised. Who can argue against freedom?
Person B can say: the safety and wellbeing of children must be our first concern. Who can argue against keeping children safe?
Person C can say: we must never permit injustice to go unpunished. Wo can argue against injustice?
But obviously, freedom, justice and the wellbeing of children must often conflict with each other, despite the fact that every thinks that all 3 are essential. How can you say that Person A and B are dishonest for disagreeing with Person C that justice must always be done?
tl;dr: existence is vastly too complex for such a black and white pronouncement as "all disagreements are the result of dishonesty". That's the kind of insane thinking that fanatics use to cause vast misery, since you're in effect saying that anyone who disagrees with you is evil.
Evil has nothing to do with disagreements. Evil is control over others. Also I did not claim anyone to be evil, in fact those that make me question myself for my own benefit are those that are "good", those that tell me I am wrong because they want to are "evil". I am very careful in the use of the word evil.
As long as people continue to bring axioms to the debate then no one is being dishonest, allowing the debate to blossom as it is here. I am not disagreeing with you... But your last paragraph is dishonest, as you have no evidence that I inferred any of those things. I most definitely did not say anyone I disagree with is evil.
Originally by: Lance Fighter
This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 05:32:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Akita T on 20/01/2009 05:34:22
Well, you did say that all disagreements are the result of dishonesty, and Malcanis took it to mean that that's kind of a "sign of evil", even if it's a bit of a stretch for him to say that...
...so, by that particular kind of stretched logic, he can claim that you implied that everybody who disagrees with you is sort of evil
|
Transval
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 08:18:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
Originally by: Kerosene
If you don't respect a viewpoint because it is fundamentally incorrect (see religion, global warming, any media sensationalism) then it's quite interesting to be able to argue to your own more valid point. If the opponent's argument is indeed built on the house of cards you think it is then it shouldn't be a problem to convert their way of thinking.
If they still refuse to accept that you're right and they are wrong then disrespect, and a smack up side the head, is due.
Someone here posted a quote awhile back and I wish I new who the originator was.
"You can not reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into"
It is not dead on, but pretty close to it.
Slade
I don't remember what the thread was Slade, but i believe the original quote was from Jonathan Swift.
Fairly certain in fact (within the preset boundries of scientific formulations allowable in this thread of course )
Regards |
KingsGambit
Caldari Knights
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 09:27:00 -
[119]
Quote:
I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Contrary to what the OP and many others may think, they aren't always right, and it really is the height of conceit to believe otherwise. Many things such as maths, chemistry, electronics are based on fact and can be taught. People can be right and they can be wrong. Faith, politics, language, music, art are matters of opinion and belief and people are entitled to their own. I may not like the same music as you, nor the same books, nor the same ships in Eve, that doesn't make you wrong just because you don't agree with me.
Originally by: Akita T
Hey, according to 7shining7one7, I'm self-centered, arrogant and don't know what else...
He's right on that. I'd add ultra right-wing to the list as well but it stops a little short 
-------------
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 09:36:00 -
[120]
Originally by: KingsGambit
Quote:
I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Contrary to what the OP and many others may think, they aren't always right, and it really is the height of conceit to believe otherwise. Many things such as maths, chemistry, electronics are based on fact and can be taught. People can be right and they can be wrong. Faith, politics, language, music, art are matters of opinion and belief and people are entitled to their own. I may not like the same music as you, nor the same books, nor the same ships in Eve, that doesn't make you wrong just because you don't agree with me.
Great way to misuse a famous quote like that.
Anyway, for a long time people have believed that science and religion are two different 'magisteria' but that has changed massively. We now better than ever understand the world around us and we can even explain how and why religion ever got its start. Science has been nibbling away at the dogmas for centuries and it won't be long until god and jesus will be treated like zeus and apollo.
Your cap ship deserves CPR's! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |