Search

GREAT RIDES & STAYS!
Fab Ads
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Freedom of Speech?.. #150246 01/30/21 10:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064
Az4x4 Offline OP
Platinum Member
*****
OP Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064

Robert A.J. Gagnon, who teaches New Testament Theology at Houston Baptist University, was banned this past Tuesday by Facebook. Gagnon holds a Ph.D. in Pauline theology and sexuality from Princeton Theological Seminary. He posted a defense of his friend, Laurie Higgins, on Facebook. She received a seven-day ban from Facebook for criticizing Biden's 'transgender' policy as it impacts our military. On the basis of his defense of his friend, Gagnon himself was banned by Facebook for the following post:

"My friend Laurie Higgins has been suspended for 7 days, for making an accurate and witty satirical post, by left-wing FB overlords who seek to squash all dissent on the issue of transgenderism, no doubt emboldened by the Biden/Harris administration.

There's nothing inaccurate about (her) post. Biden's lifting of Trump's transgender military ban will indeed put women military personnel in the awful position of having to shower with biological males.

Trans-promoters aren't content with having men invade the domain of women's sports and shelters. 'Transgender' ideology is indeed a pseudo-science, compelling people to reject basic biological facts.
"

Facebook claimed his criticisms violated the social media giant's "Community Standards on violence and incitement."

Gagnon responded; "There was absolutely no incitement to violence on our part. We abhor violence done to any person. This is just a thinly veiled and pathetic excuse for censorship of any critical views toward trans-tyranny over our consciences, religion, and reason."

He noted that, "...only one point of view is being allowed' on Facebook.

Facebook told Gagnon it has "standards" in place "to prevent and disrupt offline harm".

Another professor, Robert P. George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, spoke out on Facebook against the platform's attack on Gagnon.

"Censorship on Facebook and some other social media has now gone way beyond the bounds of the reasonable, and is grossly violating representations about free speech made by CEOs and other officers of the major platforms. ...Gagnon's suspension is an egregious case."

Professor George continued, "We need robust free speech in what functions today as the public square. We need dialogue and debate. People need to be able to criticize and forcefully challenge ideas - including ideas that are dominant in elite sectors of the culture and among people in the tech industry. What we do NOT need is the silencing of dissent. That is never a good idea. Once it starts and becomes normalized … things do not end well."


..I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question.. Dr. Phil
Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150248 01/30/21 10:34 PM
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 69
P
PackedPunches Offline
Junior Member
*****
Offline
Junior Member
*****
P
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 69
I'm with Az4x4 on this 100% we are all entitled to our opinions and have a right to share that opinion. Even if it may conflict with your own beliefs, you kinda just have to deal with it.

Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150250 01/30/21 11:03 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,615
Muniac Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,615
This problem needs to be solved in the market place. Given Facebook and Twitter stock prices falling as an indicator, people aren't happy with being kicked off for airing their opinions. Differing sides of a discussion are called dialog. Without dialog we have no debates and can't arrive at the best solutions. Providing an alternate uncensored social media platform will give users a choice. They will migrate towards the best products. America have been the gold standard of freedom which we all have enjoyed. For a small group of oligarchs to censor us because our voices don't agree with their agenda violates the 1st amendment. As I've said, a private business has rights too, regarding how it creates its TOS. And certain rights on interpreting who is in violation and appropriate punishment. Legally these social media platforms are within their rights to kick people off. A much larger picture emerges given no one could foresee the power these platforms would have on shaping the nation's information sources. In my view, the censorship that's currently going on isn't in the nation's best interests. And the people getting closed out aren't happy either. It needs to stop sooner rather than later. The best way is give people a better product choice. It's coming.

Oh I guess about 17 years ago, I made the call to setup this site as a private blog just to avoid an upper tier from shutting it down. I had been through that already with eBay and seen some of the wreckage of its past users. Other than what my ISP imposes, this site remains free and open. Sexually explicit content, making bombs, flaming and such wouldn't be allowed for example. These are reasonable restrictions on content. Otherwise I encourage respectful debate across differing opinions. We have a pretty good group here that engages in free speech respectfully. With freedom comes the wisdom to use if wisely.


Evolve & Simplify
Be There or Be Nowhere! A Few Adventures & Video
Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150251 01/30/21 11:47 PM
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
I
imlost Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
I thought we all agreed the transgender discussion had run it's course, but apparently it's resurfacing here under a different label. I'm not surprised.

You know what's wonderful? That social media platforms are finally cracking down on all of the hateful posts from hateful people, including the outspoken homophobe, Laurie Higgins.

People can hurt people with their words, and it's high time this form of hatred and divisiveness is viewed as the weapon that it is.

The First Ammendment isn't a license to use speech to hurt others.

Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: imlost] #150253 01/31/21 02:19 AM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064
Az4x4 Offline OP
Platinum Member
*****
OP Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064

Yes, the transgender discussion has 'run its course'. This discussion has to do with 'Freedom of Speech' and the suppressing of views by Facebook and other social media giants, views that run counter to their leftist agendas. These contrary views cover a wide range of topics, including of course deviant sexuality. But they are all part and parcel of the larger issue of censorship and suppression.

So please don't go running through the auditorium yelling 'FIRE' when there's no actual fire and the movie is just starting. It's just a bit of 'smoke' from a couple of well worn sticks being rubbed together to get this Freedom of Speech discussion rolling.

Originally Posted by imlost
.....You know what's wonderful? That social media platforms are finally cracking down on all of the hateful posts from hateful people, including the outspoken homophobe, Laurie Higgins.

People can hurt people with their words, and it's high time this form of hatred and divisiveness is viewed as the weapon that it is.

The First Amendment isn't a license to use speech to hurt others..

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Precious rights in our First Amendment bequeathed to all of us by our Founding Fathers. ..No establishment of religion. No prohibiting the free exercise of religion. No abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. No denying the right of peaceable assembly, or the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People "hurting people with their words" has gone on in our nation and across the world through eons of time. The First Amendment, as our Founding Fathers wrote it, says nothing about "freedom of speech" being abridged by someone or some group feeling hurt in some way by what others say.

Once you make the 'leap' to such an abridgment of a hallowed First Amendment right, an abridgment that flies in the face of 'plain text, as our Founding Fathers wrote it First Amendment intent', then the whole of the First Amendment is subject to the corrosive effects of that single abridgment.

It's the "unintended consequences" of meddling with Constitutional intent to suit a particular, often minority, point of view that people and special interest groups, in the midst of this messy milieu we know as American life, seem to completely lose track of.

If Constitutional rights and freedoms are selectively 'abridged' in service to a particular person's or group's claim that if practiced as written our First Amendment rights will "hurt their feelings" or "damage their image of themselves", then America is headed the wrong direction..


..I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question.. Dr. Phil
Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150254 01/31/21 02:49 AM
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
I
imlost Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
Wrong.

For example, I can't join this forum and say whatever I want, without repercussions. I know Muniac is pretty tolerable, but there's a point where it has to get shut down, because it's just really offensive and hurtful to the majority. This may or may not have anything to do with the 1st Ammendment, but it's perfectly understandable that if I come in to your place of business and yell, "DEVIANT SEXUALITY" and start pointing my finger at your patrons, it takes little imagination to know that you're going to promptly shut that sh** down. ...Well, maybe not in this mostly-homophobic forum, but just about everywhere else.

Words can be weapons, and this is truly underestimated. Thankfully, it's finally being recognized by Twitter, Facebook, and the like.

Oh, and don't think for a minute that this is not a continuation of the last hate thread on transgender people. It's just dressed-up in a different costume. It's just a sequel to the last movie - this one should be called, "Trans-Slam 2 ".

Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150255 01/31/21 07:51 AM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064
Az4x4 Offline OP
Platinum Member
*****
OP Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064

Today in America, the right to express one’s opinion, in accord with our First Amendment rights, is threatened by activists, authorities, and social media giants alike.

The First Amendment, as we know it, was initially proposed by the Virginia State Ratifying Convention during its meeting to approve the US Constitution in June 1788. The Virginia Resolution declared that the free exercise of religious worship could not “be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified” by the new Federal Congress, nor could any other essential rights, including “liberty of conscience and of the press.” James Madison drafted the First Amendment to adopt these principles nationwide, and this Amendment was ratified by the states on March 1, 1792.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Madison believed that the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment were the source of “..all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression.” Nevertheless this new nation backslid into censorship and suppression from its earliest days.

In 1798 the 'Alien and Sedition Acts' were passed. Mobs gathered to suppress political speech in New York and Baltimore in 1804, 1810, 1811, and 1815. In 1835 there were 147 political riots in the United States, leading to the deaths of 63 people. An 1837 a riot in Alton, Illinois caused the death of abolitionist editor Elijah Lovejoy. That outrage prompted the first notable political speech by Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln.

It wasn't until after World War One that the Supreme Court unambiguously prohibited censorship. In Abrams v. United States (1919) the court wisely and succinctly said: “..the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market...”

Over a century after free speech became the unambiguous law of the land, that constitutional right is losing public support. Many today claim to support freedom of expression, yet they will gladly acquiesce to the suppression and silencing of views they don't agree with.

Anthropology professor Carolyn Rouse called free speech a 'political illusion', a ruse to enable people to “say whatever they want, in any context, with no social, economic, legal, or political repercussions.” Rouse claimed there are, "..varieties of speech, and not all of them should be deemed deserving of the protections of freedom."

The question logically arises, 'what distinguishes speech that deserves First Amendment protection from speech that does not?' Rouse answers that the distinguishing feature of speech that deserves protection is 'culture': “..culture is what helps us determine the appropriateness of speech by balancing our rights as enshrined in the Constitution with understandings of (social) context.”

Rouse reveals that it's her own vision of what an approved "culture" consists of that counts: "..A climate-change skeptic," she explained, "has no right to make claims about climate change, as if all that science has discovered over the last X-number of centuries were irrelevant.”

Rouse spearheaded a walkout of a lecture by sociologist Charles Murray in December, 2016, insisting that Murray represented the “..normalization of racism and classism in academia.” Murray was shouted down and physically attacked by student activists at Middlebury College sometime later.

In another confrontation over freedom of expression, authorities at Evergreen State College refused to protect biology professor Bret Weinstein from physical threat by angry student activists when Weinstein, a political progressive, questioned the wisdom of a day of racial “absence” that excluded white students from the Evergreen campus.

Evergreen activists insisted that Weinstein’s questioning the wisdom of that event violated the 'norms of Evergreen’s culture,' “..He has incited white supremacists and has validated white supremacists and Nazis in our community and in the nation. I don’t think that should be protected by free speech,” a student later said.

College students across our nation openly claim to have reservations about free expression. Close to 50% of today's students say they don't believe the First Amendment protects free speech. Less than 40% believe it does. A large proportion of students believe that it's perfectly alright to physical harm those they judge to have made “offensive and hurtful statements.”

The rights that James Madison enshrined in the First Amendment, in support of the rule of reason and the advance of humanity, are rapidly yielding to the dictates and whims of “popular culture.”

With the support and encouragement of social and political allies in government and the media, professors and students alike act as though our country were a tribe instead of the Constitutional Republic it was established as. In this as yet ill-defined tribal society that America is becoming, any form of "unapproved speech" is and increasingly will be seen not as a protected First Amendment right but as a violation of the "cultural order" that tribal members look to for their sense of meaning and security..


..I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question.. Dr. Phil
Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150256 01/31/21 05:17 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064
Az4x4 Offline OP
Platinum Member
*****
OP Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,064

Jim Daly, president of 'Focus on the Family', wrote in his blog this past Wednesday that Twitter had locked the page of the 'Daily Citizen' - the online arm of the large, well-known Christian organization - for posting "hateful" content.

Daly said the issue was a Jan. 19 tweet discussing Dr. Rachel Levine, President Joe Biden's nominee for assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services. The tweet included the following sentence: "Dr. Levine is a transgender woman, that is, a man who believes he is a woman." Daly commented, "It seems, according to Twitter, simply acknowledging biological fact is now 'hateful.'"

In his blog post Daly explained: "As we noted to Twitter in our appeal, we were deeply puzzled as to why we're not permitted to simply acknowledge the definition of what transgender women are - those born male who believe they are a woman, regardless of whether they have had opposite-sex hormones or surgeries. The article itself had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Levine's 'trans' identification. It had to do with his fitness for the job based on his previous record.

We've asked Twitter to explain what was wrong with our wording and even asked them how we might describe Dr. Levine to their liking. At this writing, we haven't heard back.
"

Daly added, "..there appears to be no room for .. disagreement" these days, the "cancel culture" mantra now seems to be: "You will comply - or be silenced."

Social media, today's 'cultural echo chamber', and the tech-giants that exert 'total control' over it have, by default, assumed the role of America's 'all powerful digital overlords', 'leftist gatekeepers' of this all encompassing digital 'town square'.

Bending their 'media outlets' to suit their leftist agendas, with no 'checks and balances' or 'avenues of appeal' available that all sides of essential national conversations can agree on and work within, flies in the face of the Supreme Court unambiguously prohibiting censorship in 'Abrams v. United States' (1919) when the court said: “..the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market...”

As Dorthy explained to Toto in 'The Wizard of Oz', "..We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto..", so too must freedom loving Americans explain to those they're close to, "..We're no longer in the beloved Constitutional Republic the United States once was.."


..I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question.. Dr. Phil
Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150257 01/31/21 06:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,615
Muniac Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Offline
Platinum Member
*****
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,615
Quote
I know Muniac is pretty tolerable.


As for freedoms I try to make fair calls on this blog. The word "tolerable" is somewhat insulting in a way. As it implies I'm able to endure people's discussions but would rather they just go away. The other take is I believe in free speech, have exercised it myself and think others have those rights too. So "tolerable" could mean an increased bandwidth, if you will. It isn't always easy to know what is actually meant. I'd rather think is positive terms. We've had some melt downs over bike facts and figures over the years. Hard to believe since we all love our bikes. Some have gotten nasty which is disappointing. To include personal attacks, insults and name calling even on me. I've been called just about every name in the book over the years. As I've mentioned, working in the NYC/NJ metro area, you see/hear just about everything dealing with a very diverse community. It gets interesting. Then throw money into the equation to put all that can go wrong on steroids. I've learned not to take myself so seriously as no one else is likely to. You also get a thick skin which started for me back in nursery school. With names, fighting, pranks, mocking, disease, drugs, booze, vandalism, riots, knife fights and just about anything else negative you could deal with. It was part of the social process back then and I somehow made it through. These schoolroom experiences were made into a popular movie called, "Revenge of the Nerds". Before which "The Breakfast Club" came out. Both these movies made statements about names, group think, stereotypes, categories, etc. The "Blackboard Jungle" was another good movie dealing with an inner city school. All of them still very relevant, IMHO.

Now the government has come in dictating terms on how we must speak and address one another. Social media censors us in partisan ways. So you refer to the gay male as being "light in the loafers" and all of a sudden it's a damaging insult. WTF! Then the whole notion of government controlled hate speech violations comes into being. No nasty names allowed (as they see it). So what's considered a nasty name? Who writes the definition? And who does the studies on the actual effects of nasty names on those targeted? By some of these dogmas, I'd be a basket case by now. And I could point endless fingers at why someone else screwed up my life. BIG pharma has pills for these things now. It's not my fault, please pay for damages and give me that pill. Remember when the Rolling Stones recorded, "Mother's Little Helper". When the government is empowered this way it's a very slippery slope. Where does it stop if it ever stops once sliding down that hill. While we fight our little battles among special interest groups (for example) the government is winning the war on depriving us of free thinking and expression of our feelings. Hate, disdain, insults, etc. are all part of the human condition. Always have been and always will be. When a government stencils over its vision of what is and what isn't verbally appropriate it doesn't create peace and harmony it actually fans the flames of hate. Pent up frustration. Self guided education and awareness would be a better approach rather than force fitting commands. It's another market phenomenon. Just offer people (via example) that there's a better way forward. Don't shove it up their asses and threaten if they don't conform. Know change takes time, expect some resistance, smoke and fire along the way. Tolerance and acceptance are two way streets. Now we have the government creating victims. And once they become a government declared and protected victim they just lost a bit of freedom. And learned survival skills. I'd offer the intense hatred for Jews by Christians going back to the day, for example. Jews being denied access to jobs based on their religious beliefs. They solved the problem in a very simple way. By inventing retail and being prominent contributors to the movie industry. When I worked at Exxon I was in with a group of 13 Hasidic Jews. In many ways I was their "shabbos goy" which didn't make my job any easier. I guess I could have complained to management and forced acceptance but didn't. Instead I worked up a friendship with one guy I still dearly miss. Problem solved. One catches more flies with honey than vinegar.

In my book I think people should be free to express themselves to include compliments, insults, name calling, etc. But some lines need to be drawn for large groups which brings up "good judgement" which many of us learned from basic Christian values. They ain't perfect but have worked reasonably well for America. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater reflects poor judgement. Inflicting physical contact and/or harm on another is a crime. That's my take. Regarding this site, I don't really own it either. I'm under contract by Google Adsense which helps pay the freight. They have rules in exchange for ad dollars. I'm only one person here with a voice no louder than anyone else. My goal is to balance freedom of speech with peace, comfort and harmony. I don't want people here to see what's posted and walk away. I don't want people here to feel the need for riot gear before posting either. Hurt feelings are also bad given the spirit of this site is fun and enjoyment. I've thus drafted up our TOS hoping it meets "most" people's requirements. Since Jan 2004, that seems to be the case. I also know that no matter what I do, someone is going to be pissed off at it. You just can't please everybody and I don't try to. Trying to be all things to all people in all situations usually means being an ineffectual. Jack of all trades but master of none.

We need to start thinking more in terms of our constitution and the spirit in which its words were written. Also the rule of law. One discovers both do a pretty good job of protecting all Americans if we interpret those words as visionaries instead of strategists. No design is ever perfect either. The best designs are those that weigh tradeoffs and include well thought through compromises to reach the goals as practically as possible. Walk a mile in the other man's shoes never hurts either. How arrogant and misguided is a government that subverts or surpresses the will of the people?

I'd caution people to not fall into the divisive trap going on as I type. The bait being special interests groups that continue their infighting trying to win their little battles and in the process lose the war. It's weakening our nation. I've been lucky over my life to be exposed to a WIDE range of people and situations. Each has been a learning experience and the learning goes on. If some overblown government starts telling us what to think, how to behave , that your feelings and thoughts are somehow wrong America is heading for BIG trouble. Freedom is priceless and a right given to us by our creator (whomever you want to call that). If we continue to declare/define victim groups and set them against one another we're falling into the tender trap of losing our freedoms. While those in power laugh all the way to the bank. I still maintain that education and awareness are much better pathways toward peace, acceptance and harmony. When the mind is ready, a teacher appears. I'd much prefer to walk the highway of life on my own terms and at my own pace. I don't need the government tailgating and blowing it horn. Or any other oligarchs for that matter.

PS: We'd better get this censorship mess under control sooner rather than later. I think better platforms are on the way for which people will migrate. You choose FaceBook than expect its TOS.


Evolve & Simplify
Be There or Be Nowhere! A Few Adventures & Video
Re: Freedom of Speech?.. [Re: Az4x4] #150265 01/31/21 08:56 PM
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
I
imlost Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
Why is it necessary to draw attention to the sexuality of other people, whether they are homosexual, transgender or heterosexual? What business is it of yours, other than you judging others for what they are and what they believe in? Are they hurting you? ...and by "you", I really mean YOU, and other not other people. How would you like it if we started talking about your genitals or what you do with them? This simply hatred and this thread is nothing but a continuation of the bias of the last transgender thread. Judging people for their gender identity or sexuality is simply a power play by people who are trying to control other people. That's not America, and it's not freedom. It's suppression and hatred.

I'll echo again, that it's good that social media is shutting this hateful crap down. You believe that your right to freedom of speech is being taken away, but actually, it's your freedom that is being taken away if you allow the hate to continue. What is freedom, if everyone does not have the same opportunity?

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Web & Site Search
Google
 
Custom TO Customer
Specialty Resource and DONATE
Fab Ads
Boardcaster Updates

Board Upgrade: Board upgrade to V7.7.3 has been completed on Monday Feb 3rd 2020. Ride safely. Enjoy the new software!

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 22 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat Box
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Top Posters(All Time)
Reggie 11,645
Muniac 6,615
alexd 5,915
Az4x4 5,064
Moto Psycho 4,684
peejman 4,153
kris 2,366
JerryH 2,152
Paul49 2,112
Doc250 1,643
Forum Statistics
Forums38
Topics16,829
Posts151,287
Members6,003
Most Online279
Dec 6th, 2019
Newest Members
RickRandom, Krista, JimmyJam, gotwake5, Finchy
6003 Registered Users
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3