|
This was copied over from the forum:
Submitted by Ed on Tue, 03/12/2013 - 13:43 http://hardeybordercollies.com/id91.html
What to feed waterfowl
Orange
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 18:23
Thanks for the links. The second one is easy: I feed them rolled oats, which is on the recommended list. They only get a little bread, and it's not white bread. They get whole wheat or 7-grain bread or something like that. And that is just a treat, not a diet.
It will take a few minutes to go through the arguments of the first file. I can see errors already, but have to carefully read all of it.
LATER:
The "hardeybordercollies.com" web page "Ten Reasons Why You
Should Not Feed Wild Waterfowl & Canada Geese"
is a good example of deceptive and untrue propaganda from what I call "Nature Nazis" — people
who have extreme views of wildlife and try to force their opinions on others.
Here is the web page:
http://hardeybordercollies.com/id91.html
I'll go through it point by point:
Yes, they do, but that doesn't mean that we should not feed them. Most all of the geese's and ducks
native feeding grounds have been stolen from them and turned into farms, where the farmers get eradication
permits to kill the Canada Geese that try to feed on their farms.
See:
https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR/geSI.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2feRCGR%2fgeSTC.aspx
Saying that we shouldn't feed ducks and geese because they have "amazing survival skills" is a
Non Sequitur.
The author just assumes that there is a lot of food "out there", somewhere: "the abundance of
naturally occurring food." What abundance? The grassy meadows have been plowed up and turned into farms,
and the swamps have been drained and turned into farms. Native habitat for ducks and geese is
like old-growth forest habitat for Spotted Owls: there is very little of it left,
and somebody is always trying to take what is left.
Yes, it is, but this author confuses food types. Baby birds whose parents feed them worms or fish,
like Robins or Eagles, require high-protein diets. Baby geese, on the other hand, eat grass and seeds.
Ducks live on everything and anything from algae and duckweed to worms and insects.
When feeding the wildlife, one should should always feed quality foods, not junk food. Like rolled oats,
rather than white bread.
I agree. So don't feed them white bread. Feed them rolled oats or whole wheat. Whole grain is the best.
A 40-pound bag of rolled oats costs $11.50 at the local farm feed store.
The author is guilty of
the propaganda trick of way over-generalizing.
He claims that because some people feed wildfowl white bread and
popcorn, that all wildfowl who get some food from humans are suffering from malnutrition. Not so.
First off, the wildfowl always still scrounge for whatever they need.
The only ones I see who are not very good at scrounging are the domesticated ducks.
Even a domesticated goose like Gus is good at scrounging for greens. (See Gus below.)
Wildfowl are not stupid. They have a good idea of what constitutes a balanced diet
for them. They know what they need to eat. They hunger for the things that are
good for them. When I was hand-feeding Carmen, when
she was less than a week old, she
insisted on filling her stomach three-quarters full of grass first, and then she
would fill the remaining space with cooked rice. She never deviated from that
ratio, and she always insisted on eating the grass first. She was actually
born (hatched) with a built-in idea of what constituted good nutrition for her.
No way was she suffering from malnutrition.
Again, the author exaggerates and way over-generalizes. Wild geese and ducks do not suddenly become
dependent on humans just because they get some supplemental feeding.
What is the alternative? Are they supposed to just starve to death because the farmer won't let them
feed on his land?
Among his arguments, the author says that fed birds will lose their fear of humans. And so what is so bad about that?
The Nature Nazis want "pure" wildlife who fear and distrust humans, and have no contact with humans.
What is so great about that? Those crazy purists are foisting their unrealistic ideas on an unwilling population
of animals and humans.
Then, under the title of "Dependency", the author slips in all kinds of fear-mongering and misinformation,
like claiming that an aggressive goose can knock down a senior citizen. Well, I'm a senior citizen (66 years old),
and in 12 years of feeding them, I've never been attacked. Not once.
Canada Geese are actually very mellow and easy-going. It's the white domestic geese that will attack you without
provocation. I would not keep white geese around children, because they attack children just out of general meanness.
Then the author argues in so many ways that the geese should just die, to prevent "overpopulation", and
"concentration near highways and airports". And this guy continues to pretend that he loves wildlife.
This is a
Reversal Of Reality,
another propaganda trick. Starvation makes them sick, not getting some good supplemental feeding.
And the author uses the trick of
Confusion of Correlation and Causation.
He tries to imply that feeding the wildfowl caused his list of diseases. Nonsense. Of course disease outbreaks
occur where the concentrated populations of wildfowl are located. It's like how the
human flu breaks out in the middle of the largest cities long before it appears
on remote farms in Nebraska.
By the way, just listing three outbreaks of disease is the use of two propaganda tricks:
Cherry-Picking
and
Proof By Anecdote.
He never mentions how many other times the birds didn't get sick.
This is another Confusion of Correlation and Causation.
Concentrate the wildfowl in one small territory by taking all of their territory and making it into
farms, highways, cities, streets, buildings and parking lots, and then complain that the overcrowded
wildlife are "degrading their environment". So what is the author's answer? Just to let the wildfowl die off
so that there aren't so many of them in a small space.
This is another gross deception. Cites dump millions of gallons of sewage water into rivers and lakes, and
then they claim that the geese are polluting the water.
The Fernhill Wetlands is the dumping ground for waste water from the city of Forest Grove's sewage treatment
plant. After 10,000 people defacate in the water, you won't even notice what a few geese and ducks do.
And there are nasty algae blooms during the summer, all right, but they are caused by all of the phosphates in
the water from detergents.
Besides, the author is using another propaganda trick there:
Assume The Major Premise.
He assumes that feeding wildlife makes them poop in the water. Not so.
The truth is, the ducks always poop
in the water. It's just what they do, and they will do it no matter whether they get some muchies from
humans or just eat lots and lots of algae, weeds, worms, and insects.
Geese, on the other hand, tend to poop on the grass, which is why some people hate them eating the
grass in city parks. And they poop more when they have to eat a lot of low-calorie grass to get their
nourishment, and less if they are eating some whole wheat bread and rolled oats.
Oh horrors! Blacks and Whites having sex together, and making babies! Miscegenation! Racial Impurity!
Mixing of the races!
Now the Nazi attitudes of the purists are really becoming obvious. We just can't have those inferior
Untermenschen polluting our pure "wild" blood now, can we?
Again, much ado about nothing. Cross-breeding among the geese is rare.
I have only seen two instances of it in 12 years of
feeding the geese. In Waterfront Park in downtown Portland, Oregon,
"Jefferson" was a pure white big fat honking male goose who liked to jump on those
pretty French Canadian Geese, and he produced one son. That son produced another child, who produced another.
The line went on for three or four generations, and then died out. That's the thing: If the hybrids are
inferior, then Mother Nature eliminates them. Evolution is still going on. Survival of the fittest.
So we don't need Nature Nazis demanding Racial Purity.
The other instance of cross-breeding is Gus the Greylag Goose at the Fernhill Wetlands at Forest Grove, Oregon.
He married a Canada Goose female (they mate for life, you know), and each of the last three years,
they have had children. But only one
child has survived each year. I love Gus, but have to admit that sometimes he isn't the sharpest pencil
in the box. He doesn't seem to be as quick-witted as the Canada Geese, and neither are his children.
So the weasel or ermine or eagle picks them off, and he has had only one child survive each of the last three
years. We shall see whether they survive in the long run.
The ducks are much more into miscegenation. People have been dumping all kinds of domestic ducks at the
Fernhill Wetlands, and they have interbred and also bred with Mallard Ducks, and produced some real mongrels
that are a little of everything.
But they are dying out too. There used to be a dozen of them, but they are down to five, all males.
I think that the weasel or ermine got the females while they were sitting on their nests.
Again, Mother Nature will take care of the situation, like she has been doing for the last four billion years
without any help from humans who want to enforce racial purity.
By the way, you might notice that Mother Nature does not like to enforce racial purity at all. She wants to mix
the genes up and try every combination and every mixture of breeds. Then natural selection eliminates the
inferior ones. And life goes on.
The whole planet is cooking from Global Warming, and this guy is complaining about
delayed migration, and imagining that it is caused by feeding the geese? Geez Louise.
That is the propaganda trick of Blame A Non-Factor.
By the way, it isn't just the geese and ducks that are migrating late. Lots of
species are doing it, from whales to caribou to other birds. And those animals
are not getting food from humans. Ecologist are citing the delayed migrations of
so many species as real evidence of global warming.
Again, this is the fault of greedy humans who took all of the best land for themselves, and left
the wildlife the worst. In Forest Grove, for instance, the Fernhill Wetlands is the dumping ground
for the city's sewage treatment plant waste water. That's what the wildlife get. Sewage water. And then
this guy complains about the wildlife living in unnatural locations?
And what is this author's answer to "overcrowding"? It is to have them die.
What do you expect? Take away their lands and food sources, and then complain that they want to feed on
somebody's farm? And it costs money to kill them? This is draconian.
Notice that if I am feeding geese over at the wildlife refuge, then the geese don't need to fly to
the farmer's field to get something to eat, and he doesn't have to pay money to kill them. Funny how that works.
This is insane. I mean, really insane. The author says that we should not feed the
geese and ducks, just let them starve to death, and then he accuses those people
who love the wildlife and want to help the geese and ducks and be friends with
them of "devaluing them"? That is barking-mad insanity.
And it's another Reversal Of Reality.
It's the people who think that the wildlife should starve to death to
"reduce overcrowding" who devalue them.
That is impossible, given that there is no wilderness left. Like Indians killed off and forced onto
reservations, the wildlife are restricted to a few "wildlife refuges" where they are supposed to starve.
And the author calls that "keeping them wild".
The slogan "Keep Our Wildfowl Wild"
is an example of the propaganda trick called
The Glittering Generality.
The author of that page imagines that if we just don't feed the wildlife, that everything will be wonderful.
Date: Thu, March 14, 2013 12:38 am (Answered 15 March 2013) Terrance, It is me again,(don't know if you remember.) Well I am much better. Haven't had a drop in 6 months or so, and have no plans to. :) Feels great. I just wanted to say I am so happy you are still at it. I love your views, pictures of the geese, I honestly have always loved hippies. I'm originally from Eugene, ORE, what can I say. :) I live above a pond and have geese around here. Love watching them and think of you while watching them. You have a STRONG spirit. I have told many professionals about your site, including therapists, psychiatrists, and professor's. Some thought whoa he's angry, however some were very interested. I think you SHOULD start the other site about corporations. Who knows maybe it will start a revolution here in the states. :) God knows we need one.Take care of yourself, Jennifer
Date: Thu, March 14, 2013 12:44 am (Answered 15 March 2013) Hey Orange could you please fix that last email I sent it got all jumbled when it was sent. :) I'm on a Kindle maybe that's why. I don't know....
Take care,
Hello Jennifer,
Thank you for the letter and all of the compliments.
Yes, I remember you. I'm glad to hear that you are doing well. Congratulations.
That's great news.
And your letter wasn't too disorganized. I know how hard it is to type into those
little text boxes on web pages and try to get things right with basically no text
editing or formatting tools. I prefer to edit files on my own computer and then
upload the finished file to a web page, if at all possible.
Trying to tell a good story in those small boxes on a Facebook page is frustrating.
Have a good day now, and a good life.
== Orange
Date: Thu, March 14, 2013 5:22 am (Answered 14 March 2013) I've just spent about 3 hours reading your page, which just completely reinforced what I already thought of AA: that it is a cult of self flagellating religious nuts, that i want nothing to do with. I'm on my ipad, so maybe I'm missing something, but I never managed to find any info about your opinion on what a positive, healthy recovery would look like (outside of the 5% or so who achieve a spontaneous one). I'd love to see more info on that. I REALLY don't need much convincing about AA; my dad died of cirrhosis when I was 10, 18 years ago. He was 48, and a seasoned alumni of AA and several other programs, all similar: abstain completely or die, one slip makes you a bad person, might as well just give up until you are ready to start over....that sort of thing. Part of that 95% failure rate. I fear suffering the same fate every day, although I'm not suffering the ill consequences of drinking....yet. I even get into the "am I just in denial?" mindset on a regular basis. I fear that I won't know when I finally cross the line, I fear that my only option will be to become religious (I'm NOT) in order to get a support system or a framework for help, if i realize its not worth it to drink. I'm not trying to be critical/criticize in a negative sense, but rather looking for some information on something other than on what I already know AA to be...a pile of crap. As you say over and over....most people aren't going to stop themselves, most of us aren't going to just yank ourselves up by our own bootstraps and decide enough is enough. So what IS there for those of us who will just drink more when we feel bad, and call up a friend who is okay with that to hang out with that day? Because I see that in myself. It scares me. It scares me because it could happen on a regular basis pretty easily. I, personally, would like help of a different variety than what is available out there, if and when I decide I need it. I'd love to see you add more of that! I know that most people take a lot of convincing to let go of their culturally-ingrained idea of AA, but for those of us who are convinced....now what? I actually just watched a television show the other day where a guy had two...TWO...sips of champagne and that was played out to the viewer as a huge lapse in character on his part...and then he went to an AA meeting and said he had only been sober for 5 hours and that was supposed to be touching for the viewer. PLEASE. HE WAS NEVER NOT SOBER, and he never failed morally. I'm really glad I stumbled upon this site because it articulates a lot of what I have felt about recovery programs.... thank you for that. Someone had to say it, no? 90% of them are malarkey snake oil sales for people who just want help, and the biggest moral failing isn't a relapse on the addicts part but rather a failure on the part of our society to accept that people are human, and that the (only legal) drug we are peddling on every corner is addictive. I just wish you had more answers I suppose... heheh. Maybe you should start a cult, call it Drinkers Confidential, and solve all your money problems, right? I understand no one has the answers :) Sent from my iPad
Date: Thu, March 14, 2013 5:27 am (Answered 14 March 2013) Sorry to email bomb you, but after my last message I went back to the home page and scrolled to my right (as i said im on my ipad... apparently ive got it quite zoomed in) and found your "solution" stuff. I'm sorry for questioning, I haven't read it yet, but please disregard my earlier questions, although the THANK YOU part and other stuff still stands. :) Sent from my iPad
Date: Thu, March 14, 2013 5:50 am (Answered 14 March 2013) Hi again, I also wanted to tell you that I had to just laugh at the guy who said "i don't need statics to know that my life is better." He reminds me of the people who say "I don't need your so-called "facts" you "intellectual" SNOB!" to me regularly. My degree is in sociology but my undergrad favorite was statistics; I return for graduate school with a focus in stats in May. I hear there is a lot of money to be made by female statisticians, and I'm good at it :) I will NEVER, never understand those who say statistics don't matter, or even that statistics can lie. PEOPLE can manipulate statistics, to be deceiving (it is quite simple, on TV every day!) but pure numbers are real and can't lie, because they aren't alive, aren't subjective, as people are, and are based on universal fact. So these people who keep telling you that your statistics don't matter because they were the one in a million who were "saved" and that you are killing people.... ignore them. Take heart, Fellow human. You are doing the right thing. The truth is never wrong to speak. And you know you are speaking truth because you have facts on your side, not "feelings" or "beliefs." You know for sure. You definitely have my respect. You're definitely not in the "opinion" section considering your documentation and facts. Sent from my iPad
Hello Crystal,
Thank you for the letters and the compliments.
You actually brought up an interesting question in your first letter:
"what a positive, healthy recovery would look like."
I think you meant what a good recovery program would look like, but at first I took it the
other way, and wondered what a description of a good sober lifestyle would look like.
And I thought, "Hmmm... that's difficult, because they are all different. That is, someone
who stops killing himself with alcohol and finds something else to do with his life could
do anything: Go back to college, or resume a career, or get married and have kids, or even
go to the beach and lay in the sun and feed the goslings."
About ways to recover, yes, I trust that you found:
How did you get to where you are?
That second list includes Moderation Management. I noticed your remark about the
extremists who insist that absolute abstinence is the only way. The worst part is
teaching the idea of powerlessness, and that you will totally relapse if you have
one drink. That becomes a self-fullfilling prophesy with many people. That is a
really bad teaching and does a lot of harm. What SMART teaches is: If you have
a drink, or go to a party and get buzzed one night, then that is a "lapse",
not a "relapse". And the thing to do is just stop drinking again. When
you fall off of the horse, just climb back up on the horse and ride it some more.
Don't continue to drink and make a lapse into a full-blown relapse.
There is also HAMS and the Harm Reduction Network. Dr. Peter Ferentzy has been sending
me a bunch of news about what they are doing in Canada, and
I've been mirroring it here.
I find that a very practical approach, because they have a good chance of helping people
who will just walk away if you start talking about total abstinence. And the logic is good:
If you can't get them to stop their addiction, at least reduce the harm done. We don't
really need all of the junkies also becoming expensive AIDS patients.
Now to clarify, some people can drink moderately, and some can't. It all depends
on the individual person.
Many years ago, way back in 1978, the famous government think tank,
the Rand Corporation, found
that the successful people who had stopped drinking self-destructively
were evenly split between total abstinence and tapering off into
moderate, controlled, drinking. So total abstinence is not the only way.
It all depends on the individual person. Of course, the A.A. true believers flipped out when
the Rand Corporation released that report. (More on that
here.)
Now I'm not recommending that anybody drink alcohol. I'm just saying that one drink does not
necessarily end all recovery and instantly readdict all alcoholics. Some yes, some no.
Personally, I'm one of those people who has to 100% avoid alcohol, or I slide back
down that slippery slope very quickly. But that's okay, because I'm tired of being
sick from alcohol anyway. No big loss. I already got my lifetime quota of that
kind of suffering. I don't need any more of that.
I certainly don't want to force my style of recovery onto other people. Whatever works.
Different strokes for different folks.
About the statistics, I find that the people who refuse to hear the numbers, and don't tell
the truth about the numbers, are those people who prefer to live in a fairy tale rather than
in the real world. They really don't want to know the truth.
And yes, I've heard the accusations and complaints about bad statistics so many times.
I know what deceptive manipulations can be done with statistics. I even have Darrell Huff's classic
book
How To Lie With Statistics
listed in the bibliography, and I use some of his examples
and techniques in the web page about
Propaganda and Debating Techniques.
And I know about the famous quote that is attributed to both the British Prime Minister Desraeli and to Mark Twain, "There are three kinds of lies: Little white lies, damn lies, and statistics." I also like this quote:
Yes, not all numbers are lies. And as you well know, a good statistician uses numbers to get at the truth, not to decieve and fool people and perpetrate a fraud.
Unfortunately, A.A. uses numbers to perpetrate a fraud. All of their claimed success rates
are untrue, and so wrong that they aren't even in the right ballpark. It isn't a matter of a
small mistake, it's a matter of a huge lie. I covered much of that here: And finally, you really don't have to go down the same road as your father did. Yes, it is very good to be wary, as there does seem to be a genetic component to alcohol addiction in about half of the cases. But just because you have a gene that makes you more inclined to get addicted to alcohol doesn't mean that you have to do it. And even if you do get addicted, like I did, and just like how Dad and Grandma did, you can just get unaddicted, like I did (and they didn't). Have a good day now, and a good life. == Orange
Date: Fri, March 15, 2013 4:23 am (Answered 18 March 2013)
The World Health Organization in the Mental Health section of its website provides:
"Evidence-based recommendations for management of alcohol use disorders in non-specialized health settings"Here, the WHO asks the question:
"Should non-specialist health care providers refer alcohol dependent patients and their family members to mutual help groups such as AA?"
In its reply to the question the WHO evaluates the "Balance of benefits versus harms". The following is the WHO's opinion:
"As these groups are outside the treatment system they are known to sometimes develop "cult" like behaviours. They can also be very against the use of medications. There is the potential for harm."
Weirdly in its Final Recommendations the WHO states:
"Non-specialist health care workers should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with locally available mutual help groups (such as AA), and they should encourage the alcohol dependent patient to engage with such a group."
How can the WHO state that AA is cult like, anti-medication with the potential for harm and then recommend that alcoholics be encouraged to attend AA? A more than slightly mixed message.
Still, when the world Health Organization recognizes AA as "cult" like that really is a huge step forward in changing the treatment system.
Source: Iamnotastatistic
Hello iamnotastatistic,
Thanks for all of the information. I can only agree.
Alas, I think that even WHO is suffering from a certain kind
of informational cowardice that is common to bureaucracies. In the interests of "fair and balanced coverage",
so that they can't be accused of bias,
they just have to say good things about both sides.
It makes me think of a priest saying,
Date: Fri, March 15, 2013 5:47 am (Answered 18 March 2013)
Hi Orange, I know that you've thoroughly dealt with the subject of the 100 Men Corporation so maybe you've already dealt with this but I thought these quotes were interesting:
"How we got through the summer of 1939, I'll never quite know. Hank P. had to get a job. The faithful Ruth accepted shares in the defunct book company as pay."
Why does Wilson refer to the shares given to Ruth Hock as "shares in the defunct book company"? Wilson couldn't have been referring to shares in Works Publishing Co. since it wasn't incorporated until June 1940. In fact, Works Publishing only existed in Wilson's head during the summer of 1939. And, Works Publishing could never have been described as defunct — it came into existence and has stayed in existence ever since — only the name has changed. So the shares that Ruth Hock was given could only have been shares in the 100 Men Corporation. Otherwise there is no logical reason to refer to shares in Works Publishing as "shares in the defunct book company" since Works Publishing was never defunct. It must have been tough for Wilson to keep track of all the lies.
Ah, good catch. I must have read that text a few dozen times, and yet the word "defunct" somehow slipped
by without me connecting the dots. I knew that
Ruth Hock had to be getting stock
in
the 100 Men Corporation
because "Works Publishing, Inc." did not exist, and wouldn't exist for another year.
But Bill wrote that the publishing company (the 100 Men Corporation) was already
"defunct" in April of 1939 when they were writing the Big Book?
So Bill was inadvertently admitting that there was another publishing company in
existence before Works Publishing, which is one of the most closely-guarded secrets
in A.A. history.
Even though Bill Wilson called the defunct publishing company "Works Publishing"
in his falsified history, the defunct company could not possibly be Works Publishing
because Works Publishing didn't come into existence until a year later. Ah yes. Good catch.
Also, Wilson wrote in Alcoholics Anonymous comes of Age:
"Four hundred shares of stock [Bill's & Hank's] had never been issued and could not be issued, under our original agreement, until the cash subscribers had received all their money back." AAcoA pg 188. But Wilson also wrote:
"Meanwhile, some of the stockholders in the book company,Works Publishing, began to get restive. All the book profits, they complained, were going for A.A. work in the office. When, if ever, were they going to get their money back? We also saw that the book "Alcoholics Anonymous" should now become the property of A.A. as a whole. At the moment [1940], it was owned one-third by the 49 subscribers, one-third by my friend Hank P., and the remainder by me.
How, if the shares were never issued, did Bill and Hank "donate" shares that "we had taken for services rendered" to the Alcoholic Foundation? One can't donate something that "had never been issued and could not be issued". Also, Wilson states that the shares couldn't have been issued until "the cash subscribers had received all their money back" in AAcoA. But in the Service Manual Wilson states that he and Hank P. donated their shares to the Alcoholic Foundation before the subscribers were paid back. What a mess of lies and contradictions! Yes. Finally, in AAcoA Wilson writes:
"Ruth had no time to keep books, and I did not know how." How was Wilson, as a self proclaimed "stockbroker"(which we know he wasn't) and business analyst who traveled the country evaluating companies, unable to keep books? How did Wilson not know the basics of accounting? If Wilson wasn't able to keep books then he wouldn't have known how to analyze or evaluate them either? So, how did Wilson evaluate or analyze a company if he couldn't analyze or evaluate their books? He must have been the suckiest business analyst ever. Or was he just trying to distance himself from the financial irregularities by claiming that since he didn't know how to keep books and didn't keep the books then he wasn't to blame for the missing money? Yes, I think the later. I think that Bill Wilson was familiar enough with the laws of stocks to know that he was also engaged in felony securities fraud. He definitely wanted to distance himself from that, and pretend that somebody else did it.
Thanks Orange
Date: Fri, March 15, 2013 12:00 pm (Answered 18 March 2013)
Hello again Terrance, The threats of death to the alcoholic or AA member in AA literature are alarming and disgusting. Why does AA have to threaten its members with death? Here's a list that I've put together: some are direct and explicit, some are implicit, some are subtle — all contain the same message: Do it the AA way or die! I've covered all of the Big Book except for the personal stories, the 12&12, The AA Service Manual and the Traditions pamphlet.There are 56 examples in this list. I wonder how many death threats there are in total in all AA literature? Thanks
*Big Book, 4th Ed.*
*12&12*
*The A.A. Service Manual combined with Twelve Concept for World Service, 2005-2006 Edition.*
*AA Tradition — How it developed by Bill W.*, A.A. pamphlet available at:
Yes. Thanks for the lists. Nothing like a few death threats to keep the suckers in line.
Oh well, have a good day now.
== Orange
Last updated 20 March 2015. |
