Australian Politics Forum - Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #45 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 7:13am

ian wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:26am:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am:

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

correct, but what or who are you responding to. ? Its not illegal to promote love between adults and children in this country, neither is it illegal to publish pictures of naked children. Not seeing your point here.

since when???...you are not allowed to take pictures of children unless they are your own in a play ground...let alone naked children...

and what sort of love between children and adults are you referring too??.. Angry

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #46 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 7:15am

Gnads wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:10pm:

Quote:

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) makes it unlawful to “offend, insult humiliate or intimidate” a person on the grounds of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Section 18C was the provision used against News Corp Australia journalist Andrew Bolt in 2011 for two columns he had published in 2009.

“This week leaders from around the world have united to defend the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to publish content that is offensive to some,” says Mr Breheny.

“But a publication such as Charlie Hebdo would struggle to survive in Australia, due to laws that censor offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating speech. Section 18C could be used against the publishers of cartoons that satirise figures based on their race or ethnicity. Content not caught by section 18C would almost certainly be censored by current state religious vilification laws, which are specifically designed to target the kind of content published in Charlie Hebdo.”

“The attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom of expression. And as Prime Minister Tony Abbott rightly noted in response to this atrocity, ‘Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society.’”

“The Abbott government should seek to put the prime minister’s words into action by repealing existing Australian laws that restrict free speech, starting with section 18C,” says Mr Breheny.

Currently 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

http://www.news.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-would-be-censored-in-australia-freedom-commissioner-tim-wilson/story-fncynjr2-1227183150030

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/being-charlie-with-18c-in-place-australia-says-non/story-fnpdbcmu-1227182736935

http://australianconservative.com/2015/01/paris-massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-shows-why-rda-section-18c-must-go-%E2%80%93-ipa/

Sounds like Australians need to grow up and the left to harden up.

As a great man once said Wink

"We have to be prepared to speak up for our beliefs. We have to be prepared to call things as we see them. Of cause from time to time poeple will be upset, offended, insulted, humiliated... But it is all part of a free society...Because in the end the cornerstone of progress is free speech.

So in that case if Charlie Hebdo was in Australia they should be off the hook re: 18C

Islam is a religion not a race or ethnicity.

Isn't it? Roll Eyes

The cartoons insult race and religion, thats obvious.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #47 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 7:18am

cods wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 7:13am:

ian wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:26am:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am:

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

correct, but what or who are you responding to. ? Its not illegal to promote love between adults and children in this country, neither is it illegal to publish pictures of naked children. Not seeing your point here.

since when???...you are not allowed to take pictures of children unless they are your own in a play ground...let alone naked children...

and what sort of love between children and adults are you referring too??.. Angry

Im not talking about a playground, it is not illegal to publish pictures of naked children in this country.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/henson-returns-to-the-most-provocative-landscape-of-all-20120912-25rrv.html

Back to top

IP Logged

Gnads Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 29898 Gender:	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #48 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 7:20am So the cartoons leave no doubt & deliberately depict "race"? i.e. Arab?
Back to top	"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21884
A cat with a view

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #49 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 8:05am

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Steampipe,

'Responsible speech' ?

'Read all about it.'

IMAGE....

Quote:

S. African Muslims: Free speech limited when “connected to the heart of the Muslim”
Jan 11, 2015 01:57 pm | Robert Spencer

As I predicted, in the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, the Islamic war on the freedom of speech is escalating, as Muslims worldwide work to extinguish the freedom of speech

and compel the free world to adopt Sharia blasphemy laws restricting criticism of Islam.

Google

QUESTION;
What is the 'message' being conveyed, by moslems, in the image above ?

What does that 'message' signify and intend ?

To answer that, simply look at the image below;

IMAGE.....

"Freedom of expression GO TO HELL!"

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #50 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 9:12am

ian wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:26am:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am:

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

correct, but what or who are you responding to. ? Its not illegal to promote love between adults and children in this country, neither is it illegal to publish pictures of naked children. Not seeing your point here.

Um by all means go for a re-read....

Perhaps of the entire thread, since you need to ask "who are you responding to..."

Further, it is ILLEGAL to make or have images of children depicting sex acts with adults. One would think that does not need explanation, further, it is a slightly different issue than naked pictures, which actually do have some legal implications.

In short, you are not seeing the point here either because you have not read it thoroughly or have not comprehended what was said. It is after all fairly straight forward mate.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3507 Gender:	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #51 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 9:16am I would also challenge you Ian to test your theory, you see your use of the word "if". That is hypothetical therefore. I think you would most certainly run into issues if there was even a hint of promoting and/or supporting pedophilia... Child protection laws are in place for a reason.
Back to top	On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day... "They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean.. IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #52 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 10:31am

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am:

Garbage articles by garbage journalists.

Here is why.

NO cartoon in this country has been tested or challenged by 18C. As such, it is not proven that Satire would be pulled up.

Secondly, if Charlie Hedbo was in Australia, then most likely some of it's satire (at some point) may be tested against 18C and also, some may be found wanting. That would not automatically mean that Charlie Hedbo (the magazine) would close down, cease to exist or disappear in a puff of smoke. The proof of this, why, Andrew Bolt of course. He failed the 18C test spectacularly and yet, he is still exercising his right to free speech, daily.

So, rubbish articles designed to capitalize from the Charlie Hedbo mass murder. Exercising free speech, these people are scum.

As to laws of nature, real laws of nature cannot be effected, limited or changed in anyway shape or form by man.

Example, blades of grass always move in the same pattern when blowing in the wind - that is a law of nature.

Free speech is a human concept for humans alone. Animals are not subject to freedom of expression, that's why we have culls, zoos and animal companion act laws.

Then we move to the child pornography and free speech furphy.

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

But don't you see, A lion roaring is itself an expression, animals (humans included) are born will the freedom to express themselves, we do don't need a state to tell us we have a right to express ourselves.

Its troubling to see the left throwing away everything we have achieved during the Age of Enlightenment.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #53 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 10:35am

Gnads wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:10pm:

Quote:

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) makes it unlawful to “offend, insult humiliate or intimidate” a person on the grounds of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Section 18C was the provision used against News Corp Australia journalist Andrew Bolt in 2011 for two columns he had published in 2009.

“This week leaders from around the world have united to defend the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to publish content that is offensive to some,” says Mr Breheny.

“But a publication such as Charlie Hebdo would struggle to survive in Australia, due to laws that censor offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating speech. Section 18C could be used against the publishers of cartoons that satirise figures based on their race or ethnicity. Content not caught by section 18C would almost certainly be censored by current state religious vilification laws, which are specifically designed to target the kind of content published in Charlie Hebdo.”

“The attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom of expression. And as Prime Minister Tony Abbott rightly noted in response to this atrocity, ‘Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society.’”

“The Abbott government should seek to put the prime minister’s words into action by repealing existing Australian laws that restrict free speech, starting with section 18C,” says Mr Breheny.

Currently 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

http://www.news.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-would-be-censored-in-australia-freedom-commissioner-tim-wilson/story-fncynjr2-1227183150030

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/being-charlie-with-18c-in-place-australia-says-non/story-fnpdbcmu-1227182736935

http://australianconservative.com/2015/01/paris-massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-shows-why-rda-section-18c-must-go-%E2%80%93-ipa/

Sounds like Australians need to grow up and the left to harden up.

As a great man once said Wink

"We have to be prepared to speak up for our beliefs. We have to be prepared to call things as we see them. Of cause from time to time poeple will be upset, offended, insulted, humiliated... But it is all part of a free society...Because in the end the cornerstone of progress is free speech.

So in that case if Charlie Hebdo was in Australia they should be off the hook re: 18C

Islam is a religion not a race or ethnicity.

Isn't it? Roll Eyes

Have you read the cartoons? it insult race and religion, and a lot of other things. Under 18C you would have the left screaming while marching in the streets "double standerds for islam" cracking down on everything apart from any islamic.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #54 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 11:31am

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

I would also challenge you Ian to test your theory, you see your use of the word "if". That is hypothetical therefore.

I think you would most certainly run into issues if there was even a hint of promoting and/or supporting pedophilia...

Child protection laws are in place for a reason.

Read my link, Bill Henson, its already been tested. Did he run into issues, yes. But ngt legal ones, they tried and failed. They even changed the law in NSW after his exhibit, but still not illegal to publish naked pictures of children. hypothetical or not this has issue exposed the hypocrisy and the motives of those condemning Islam.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #55 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 11:33am

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

ian wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:26am:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am:

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

correct, but what or who are you responding to. ? Its not illegal to promote love between adults and children in this country, neither is it illegal to publish pictures of naked children. Not seeing your point here.

Um by all means go for a re-read....

Perhaps of the entire thread, since you need to ask "who are you responding to..."

Further, it is ILLEGAL to make or have images of children depicting sex acts with adults. One would think that does not need explanation, further, it is a slightly different issue than naked pictures, which actually do have some legal implications.

In short, you are not seeing the point here either because you have not read it thoroughly or have not comprehended what was said. It is after all fairly straight forward mate.

you responded to a post which was never made, I did not mention child porn, that bit is in your mind.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30096
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #56 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:40pm

ian wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 7:15am:

Gnads wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:10pm:

Quote:

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) makes it unlawful to “offend, insult humiliate or intimidate” a person on the grounds of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Section 18C was the provision used against News Corp Australia journalist Andrew Bolt in 2011 for two columns he had published in 2009.

“This week leaders from around the world have united to defend the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to publish content that is offensive to some,” says Mr Breheny.

“But a publication such as Charlie Hebdo would struggle to survive in Australia, due to laws that censor offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating speech. Section 18C could be used against the publishers of cartoons that satirise figures based on their race or ethnicity. Content not caught by section 18C would almost certainly be censored by current state religious vilification laws, which are specifically designed to target the kind of content published in Charlie Hebdo.”

“The attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom of expression. And as Prime Minister Tony Abbott rightly noted in response to this atrocity, ‘Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society.’”

“The Abbott government should seek to put the prime minister’s words into action by repealing existing Australian laws that restrict free speech, starting with section 18C,” says Mr Breheny.

Currently 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

http://www.news.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-would-be-censored-in-australia-freedom-commissioner-tim-wilson/story-fncynjr2-1227183150030

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/being-charlie-with-18c-in-place-australia-says-non/story-fnpdbcmu-1227182736935

http://australianconservative.com/2015/01/paris-massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-shows-why-rda-section-18c-must-go-%E2%80%93-ipa/

Sounds like Australians need to grow up and the left to harden up.

As a great man once said Wink

"We have to be prepared to speak up for our beliefs. We have to be prepared to call things as we see them. Of cause from time to time poeple will be upset, offended, insulted, humiliated... But it is all part of a free society...Because in the end the cornerstone of progress is free speech.

So in that case if Charlie Hebdo was in Australia they should be off the hook re: 18C

Islam is a religion not a race or ethnicity.

Isn't it? Roll Eyes

The cartoons insult race and religion, thats obvious.

what's wrong with insulting religion ? It's not as though is it based on fact is it.

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16624
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #57 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:48pm

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:10pm:

Quote:

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) makes it unlawful to “offend, insult humiliate or intimidate” a person on the grounds of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Section 18C was the provision used against News Corp Australia journalist Andrew Bolt in 2011 for two columns he had published in 2009.

“This week leaders from around the world have united to defend the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to publish content that is offensive to some,” says Mr Breheny.

“But a publication such as Charlie Hebdo would struggle to survive in Australia, due to laws that censor offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating speech. Section 18C could be used against the publishers of cartoons that satirise figures based on their race or ethnicity. Content not caught by section 18C would almost certainly be censored by current state religious vilification laws, which are specifically designed to target the kind of content published in Charlie Hebdo.”

“The attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom of expression. And as Prime Minister Tony Abbott rightly noted in response to this atrocity, ‘Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society.’”

“The Abbott government should seek to put the prime minister’s words into action by repealing existing Australian laws that restrict free speech, starting with section 18C,” says Mr Breheny.

Currently 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

http://www.news.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-would-be-censored-in-australia-freedom-commissioner-tim-wilson/story-fncynjr2-1227183150030

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/being-charlie-with-18c-in-place-australia-says-non/story-fnpdbcmu-1227182736935

http://australianconservative.com/2015/01/paris-massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-shows-why-rda-section-18c-must-go-%E2%80%93-ipa/

Sounds like Australians need to grow up and the left to harden up.

As a great man once said Wink

"We have to be prepared to speak up for our beliefs. We have to be prepared to call things as we see them. Of cause from time to time poeple will be upset, offended, insulted, humiliated... But it is all part of a free society...Because in the end the cornerstone of progress is free speech.

How about 18D Ahovking? What does that say? http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html

Quote:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D

Exemptions
               Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

                  (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

                  (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

                  (c) in making or publishing:

                           (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

                           (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Back to top

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #58 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:04pm

Charlie Hebdo would not be censored in this country based on 18C

18C outlaws any public act that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group, and which is done because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

Not their religion.

18C would not apply because any offense taken would be based on religious belief and not race.

Secondly 18D kills 18C. According to 18D 18C does not apply to any acts that are done reasonably and in good faith, and which are one of these: artistic works; statements made for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or other genuine purpose in the public interest; fair or accurate reports of matters of public interest; or fair comment (based on a genuinely held belief) on matters of public interest.

That adds up to a lot of ways in which words or pictures cannot be caught by 18C, and they all apply no matter how offended or insulted the victims are.

Based on all this Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson is wrong Charlie Hebdo would not be censored because of 18C

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:34pm by Raven »

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49371
At my desk.

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #59 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:05pm

There is a naked picture of a child on this website. I have not run into any issues with it yet.

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:38pm:

Quote:

Soren apparently isnt.

When you say apparently, does that mean he hasn't answered your stupid questions, so you are filling in the blanks for him?

yep, just like he constantly does.

So you deliberately lie because you think other people are doing the same?

Quote:

18c hasn't stopped racial hate speech or racial attacks etc, in fact its grown in recent years, and much of that growth comes from the youth.

I think there is a guy in jail for holocaust denial on his website, but his website is still up and receiving more attention than ever.

Quote:

Rights are created by men, for men to enjoy, Ahovking. Their is no God involved, they do not spring out of the ground like plants. Please leave the metaphysical stuff for your bed time stories.

You have to speak really slowly for this one, Ahovking.

Quote:

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

Abu wanted the age of consent lowered to the onset of puberty, and further erosion of children's rights so that sex with even younger children could not be effectively prosecuted.

Quote:

Certain words are banned on this forum.
Censorship is everywhere.

Bobby, freedom of speech does not mean you can compel someone else to publish or broadcast your words for you. Nor can you force people to listen to your BS.

Quote:

absolute nonsense, go take your memory pills, you need something

18c is still a massive grey area. No-one knows how far it could be taken.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged