Jump to content
Dragonjoe69

What really pisses you off? please no posts about nexus lol

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, markdf said:

 

That's not even remotely true. I love meat as much as anyone, but people can absolutely survive on a vegan diet. Humans are consumate omnivores, we can survive on some pretty extreme diets -- from entirely plant based, to almost entirely meat based. That's not ideology, it's human biology. And if you're not convinced, try to actually identify even ONE nutrient that is not available in adequate quantities from a vegan source.

 

I don't have to.

 

The top two >vegan< (not vegetarian) scientists have a list of mandatory supplements, and will not sign off on any diet that does not contain them, because any diet that does not contain them will cause long term irreversible damage.

 

End of discussion.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

So my comparison was right then? What context is there to see?

Um.....the part where you took it to an absurd end?  But hey.....details right?

4 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Yeah but the 12 week old fetus is not a person and the 4 year old is.

Stab or punch a pregnant woman in the belly killing the baby but not the woman and see if you don't wind up getting a murder charge for the baby.  Funny the hypocrisy in that.  

6 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Pure conservative moral manic talking point, debunked and shredded millions of times. A person can't be abandoned because the person will have some feelings about that, a fetus can't possess that.

Except you can't prove that a fetus doesn't have feelings.  Going down that road, a baby just out of womb suddenly develops those feel feels do they?  That rap on the ass makes that ball drop?  Or does the baby not have feelings so tossing them in the dumpster when your having a bad day is just peachy?  Sorry, the only debunking is the train right off of the logic tracts with that nonsense.

9 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Yes because aborting a child is not the same as murder. To suggest they're both murder you have to also suggest that a 12 week old fetus is the same as a 4 year kid. So what exactly was the context i was missing here?

Leaving a four year old in the ditch is the same as pulling said 12 week old out.  You are definitely risking the life of one and killing the other.  Abortion is legal for now so what why are you even concerned?

13 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

A subjective thought. Everything's weird to someone out there.

Hey, we agree.  

14 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

This question ignores the fact that a baby is not a fetus and vice versa and to suggest otherwise is to ignore well known medical science that honestly even many illiterate people vaguely understand.

Oh, right.  So leaches should still be used and if you can't see something with your naked eye (like germs and bacteria and viruses) then it doesn't exist and blah, blah, blah.  Medical science is by no means fixed.  It continues to redefine what it thought it knew over and over and over.  As for a fetus not being a baby, where is biological proof that there is a deference?  Where is the change point?  Is pixy fair dust involved?  I think you are illiterate when it comes to medical science.  You believe what you are told.   Science is about questioning things.  Just because we believe something is X, doesn't mean it will stay that way.  What you are calling medical science is really social engineering.

21 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Well seems is a very weak reasoning to go off on don't you think? It seems very weird that earth isn't actually a flat bed of dirt and water, i can't see the curve. That's no reason to think the globe is unscientific. One blob of cells is a person, the other has barely even formed yet. That's the distinction.

What?  You can see the earth is curved if you climb a mountain.  Logic dictates that bodies under gravitational pull generally form as globes.  

There is no parallel between that and calling a fetus a non-person until they pop out of the womb.  As for 12 weeks being a blob, a simple google search will put that to bed.  While it is too small to live outside the womb with today's technology, it is pretty well formed.  

Link to post
35 minutes ago, markdf said:

 

That's not even remotely true. I love meat as much as anyone, but people can absolutely survive on a vegan diet. Humans are consumate omnivores, we can survive on some pretty extreme diets -- from entirely plant based, to almost entirely meat based. That's not ideology, it's human biology. And if you're not convinced, try to actually identify even ONE nutrient that is not available in adequate quantities from a vegan source.

A pure vegan diet is hard to pull off without supplements.  You have to have access to a broad variety of things that folks outside of the "west" would not have the means or money to acquire.  Also, age makes this more and more difficult:  https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-supplements-for-vegans  and https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325283.

So doable, but only for limited parts of the human population and difficult even for them.  Heck, a balanced diet without supplements is damned hard as we get older.  🤕

Link to post
31 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

I don't have to.

 

The top two >vegan< (not vegetarian) scientists have a list of mandatory supplements, and will not sign off on any diet that does not contain them, because any diet that does not contain them will cause long term irreversible damage.

 

End of discussion.

 

So it should be easy to name those nutrients then, right? Or even name the scientists in question?

Link to post
7 minutes ago, gregathit said:

A pure vegan diet is hard to pull off without supplements.  You have to have access to a broad variety of things that folks outside of the "west" would not have the means or money to acquire.  Also, age makes this more and more difficult:  https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-supplements-for-vegans  and https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325283.

So doable, but only for limited parts of the human population and difficult even for them.  Heck, a balanced diet without supplements is damned hard as we get older.  🤕

 

Depends on what your standards for "healthy" are. If you expect the quality of health and longevity that people in industrialized nations are accustomed to, then yeah it's hard and requires a magnificent range of foods from a lot of places -- the fact that anyone can do it is one of capitalism's triumphs. But that's a far cry from vegans dying of malnutrition without supplements, which was the claim I was contradicting.

Link to post
35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Um.....the part where you took it to an absurd end?  But hey.....details right?

Like what details?

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Stab or punch a pregnant woman in the belly killing the baby but not the woman and see if you don't wind up getting a murder charge for the baby.  Funny the hypocrisy in that.

This is what i'm talking about, you're merging several different non-related arguments into one and telling me that i'm missing details when really i'm just breaking down what you're saying. If i punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill her fetus then i'll be charged because i'm not the mother. It's not my call to make and it sure as hell ain't medically safe for either of them so i'll also be charged for putting the mother's life at critical risk. The only hypocrisy here would be you completely ignoring who has the right to make such calls and then saying i'm taking this to an absurd level.

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Leaving a four year old in the ditch is the same as pulling said 12 week old out.  You are definitely risking the life of one and killing the other.  Abortion is legal for now so what why are you even concerned?

Which means you're saying the 12 week old fetus is the same as a 4 year old child. You are in fact making that comparison yet you said earlier that i'm missing what context now when i pointed that out? The places that have abortion legal will never go back to making it illegal and hopefully all other places will follow suit. My concern is about the places that don't enjoy such rights and the fact that people like you will keep attempting to reverse the progress made in the general first world out of your distorted sense of "morality".

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Oh, right.  So leaches should still be used and if you can't see something with your naked eye (like germs and bacteria and viruses) then it doesn't exist and blah, blah, blah.  Medical science is by no means fixed.  It continues to redefine what it thought it knew over and over and over.  As for a fetus not being a baby, where is biological proof that there is a deference?  Where is the change point?  Is pixy fair dust involved?  I think you are illiterate when it comes to medical science.  You believe what you are told.   Science is about questioning things.  Just because we believe something is X, doesn't mean it will stay that way.  What you are calling medical science is really social engineering.

It's not "blah, blah, blah" it's established medical science. Leaches aren't even human and sure as hell aren't people so again, another pointless point merged into the argument to dilute the core point. Medical science as a whole isn't fixed just like physics, but whether a fetus should be thought of as a baby and vice versa? That is fixed, so i'm sure what you think is being redefined here.

The fact that we don't address a baby as a fetus should give you all the proof but if this isn't enough you can always ask your local doctor to confirm what i said. Science is not about asking questions that were correctly answered thousands of years ago.

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

What?  You can see the earth is curved if you climb a mountain.  Logic dictates that bodies under gravitational pull generally form as globes.  

There is no parallel between that and calling a fetus a non-person until they pop out of the womb.  As for 12 weeks being a blob, a simple google search will put that to bed.  While it is too small to live outside the womb with today's technology, it is pretty well formed.

No you can't, and even if you did it wouldn't be enough to suggest that the earth itself is a round globe all the way around. But that's not even the point, the point is to speak from facts, not "morality" or "feelings" but facts and the concrete right of making a choice as the carrier/host. A 12 week old blob of cells is not a person, a 4 year old child is. A simple google search will put that to bed. It's got nothing to do with it's size lmao, it's got to do with the fact that it's not finished forming into a human baby let alone a person to begin with.

Link to post
2 hours ago, markdf said:

 

So it should be easy to name those nutrients then, right? Or even name the scientists in question?

 

Yep.

 

You can listen a gander of about twenty hours of meatasauruses and veggiesauruses like Kesser and Wilks screaming at each other in 2.5 to 4 hour segments, about seven of them in the last three to four years. All of them on Spotify via Joe Rogan Experience. Knock yourself out.

 

Quote

Depends on what your standards for "healthy" are.

 

1. Moving the goalposts

2. Dying of liver failure or pancreatic cancer is not generally regarded as "healthy" of any kind.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

Yep.

 

You can listen a gander of about twenty hours of meatasauruses and veggiesauruses like Kesser and Wilkes screaming at each other in 2.5 to 4 hours segments, about seven of them in the last three to four years. All of them on Spotify via JRE. Knock yourself out.

 

So what I'm hearing is that you just have some rants on Spotify and no actual peer-reviewed research, and no names of ACTUAL nutrients. At least Gregathit had an actual list nutrients that are *harder* for vegans to get naturally (although still possible in every case).

 

The problem is this black or white attitude towards nutrition -- that you'll die of malnutrition without animal products. You won't, and there are millions of people who are very much alive to prove that. They may not be as healthy (although I'd like to see research before I believe that), but they are definitely not dying of malnutrition.

Link to post

You're hearing what you want to hear because apparently having the experts debate with annotations  literally in front of you is "too arbitrary", which is pretty ironic cause the one being arbitrary here isn't me.

 

You've got some anecdotal one time a guy was vegan and not died cause I know for sure versus the people right now at the cutting edge of developing the diets and sciences thereof and you're sure you know which answer is the right one without having heard them speak at all.

 

Sure.

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

This is what i'm talking about, you're merging several different non-related arguments into one and telling me that i'm missing details when really i'm just breaking down what you're saying. If i punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill her fetus then i'll be charged because i'm not the mother.

So if you are a chick and punch yourself in the tummy, which kills the fetus, by your twisted logic that is not murder.  Okay Dokey.  Way to miss the entire point.

My point, which was clear, is that killing a fetus can be murder:  https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/20/us/when-the-death-of-a-fetus-is-murder.html

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Which means you're saying the 12 week old fetus is the same as a 4 year old child. You are in fact making that comparison yet you said earlier that i'm missing what context now when i pointed that out? The places that have abortion legal will never go back to making it illegal and hopefully all other places will follow suit. My concern is about the places that don't enjoy such rights and the fact that people like you will keep attempting to reverse the progress made in the general first world out of your distorted sense of "morality".

You can't give me a scientific or biological difference between a fetus that is about to be born and a baby that has just been born and you whine that my logic is distorted.  Wow.  Just Wow.  

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

It's not "blah, blah, blah" it's established medical science. Leaches aren't even human and sure as hell aren't people so again, another pointless point merged into the argument to dilute the core point. Medical science as a whole isn't fixed just like physics, but whether a fetus should be thought of as a baby and vice versa? That is fixed, so i'm sure what you think is being redefined here.

ROFL!!!!  Please stop.  You are either unable to understand due to a translator or just not up to this.  My point wasn't that leeches are people, it is that leeches where once considered cutting edge medical science.  Have you ever read a book about medieval times?  Golly Gee there Wally.  It is impossible to have misconstrued this as I went on to talk about the brightest medical folks at one time didn't believe in things they could not see with their eyes......such as germs and so on.  Medical science is not fixed was the entire point.  Oh, physics isn't necessarily fixed either.  We just have the tip of the iceberg there.  And as for your fetus vs baby being fixed.......nope.  Beyond you, it isn't fixed.  Sorry.

You are not the arbiter of truth.

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Science is not about asking questions that were correctly answered thousands of years ago.

Wrong, wrong and more wrong.  Science is about asking questions of everything.  Nothing is established.  Very little that was believed thousands of years ago is actually true today.  Very little of what is true today may be true a thousand years from now.  As our understanding grows, so grows our capacity to figure things out.  Sure some basic building blocks are still going to be valid, but lots of things have been stood on their head in the last 100 years.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

But that's not even the point, the point is to speak from facts, not "morality" or "feelings" but facts and the concrete right of making a choice as the carrier/host. A 12 week old blob of cells is not a person, a 4 year old child is. A simple google search will put that to bed. It's got nothing to do with it's size lmao, it's got to do with the fact that it's not finished forming into a human baby let alone a person to begin with.

Wait, you want facts to be the basis but then you said:

2 hours ago, Mr. Otaku said:  A person can't be abandoned because the person will have some feelings about that, a fetus can't possess that.

 

I'm so confused.  So which is it?  Facts or feel feels?  If it is facts, then why won't you give me the biological difference between a baby just born and fetus about to be born?  I've asked twice (or is it three times?).

 

Oh, and those that are born with defects, ie that are not "finished forming" they aren't people?  Wow.  News to me.  Come on, pick facts or pick feelings.  You can't have both.  You are fence hopping to cherry pick talking points.  Pick your side and embrace it.  Unless you don't really believe what you think you believe?

Link to post
2 hours ago, gregathit said:

So if you are a chick and punch yourself in the tummy, which kills the fetus, by your twisted logic that is not murder.  Okay Dokey.  Way to miss the entire point.

My point, which was clear, is that killing a fetus can be murder:  https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/20/us/when-the-death-of-a-fetus-is-murder.html

You just did it again lol. Yes technically if a woman chooses to, she can and should be able to punch her stomach really hard and abort the fetus, that's how they did it when the necessary right to abort was not a luxury mothers with unwanted pregnancies enjoyed. They used to do it with coat hangers and everything in between.

But NO woman should ever need to resort to punching herself if medically safe abortion services are available, something people like you oppose due to your twisted notion of morality. You'd rather think about the fetus that can't perceive anything than the woman who is pained by it's unwanted existence. For people like you morals aren't the point, the suffering is.

 

Posting an article from 1994 of a pregnant woman getting shot by a robber does nothing to erode my point and only confirms what i said earlier that you can't help but jump around to a 100 points and then say my logic is twisted when i break them all down one by one. The article you posted only confirms how much straighter my logic is compared to yours. You don't like that i'm not letting you switch the goalposts.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You can't give me a scientific or biological difference between a fetus that is about to be born and a baby that has just been born and you whine that my logic is distorted.  Wow.  Just Wow.

I thought you had google, why are you asking me to differentiate two completely different forms of life? Next you're going to ask if i can prove that bonobos aren't homosapiens? Yet you whine my logic is distorted? Wow, just wow.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

ROFL!!!!  Please stop.

Fake laugh aside

d97.jpg.8e7a5601fbb6e0885eef3ad9b8c58ff9.jpg

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You are either unable to understand due to a translator or just not up to this.  My point wasn't that leeches are people, it is that leeches where once considered cutting edge medical science.  Have you ever read a book about medieval times?  Golly Gee there Wally.  It is impossible to have misconstrued this as I went on to talk about the brightest medical folks at one time didn't believe in things they could not see with their eyes......such as germs and so on.  Medical science is not fixed was the entire point.  Oh, physics isn't necessarily fixed either.  We just have the tip of the iceberg there.  And as for your fetus vs baby being fixed.......nope.  Beyond you, it isn't fixed.  Sorry.

You did it again! More unrelated non-points to distract from the fact that fetuses aren't children and shouldn't enjoy the same rights as them. All this medieval leech talk, you can store it somewhere else, perhaps for topics that call for these things. We're in the 21st century, so i'll use 21st century medical science which proves that a fetus is not a baby. It is fixed, you can deny it but it wouldn't go away. Even illiterate people have a rough understanding of how this works. What did you people do in school?

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You are not the arbiter of truth.

Neither are you.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Wrong, wrong and more wrong.  Science is about asking questions of everything.  Nothing is established.  Very little that was believed thousands of years ago is actually true today.  Very little of what is true today may be true a thousand years from now.  As our understanding grows, so grows our capacity to figure things out.  Sure some basic building blocks are still going to be valid, but lots of things have been stood on their head in the last 100 years.

So if i claim you're a dog then you have to believe me because nothing is established? Do you just like talking in hyperboles all the time? We know for a fact that fetuses are not babies, they don't function like each other and they don't even look like each other. That's why we have two different terms to note two separate states of a human's development pre-birth. Saying "wrong wrong wrong" to me won't make this a lie as much as you may hate it.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Wait, you want facts to be the basis but then you said:

2 hours ago, Mr. Otaku said:  A person can't be abandoned because the person will have some feelings about that, a fetus can't possess that.

 

I'm so confused.  So which is it?  Facts or feel feels?  If it is facts, then why won't you give me the biological difference between a baby just born and fetus about to be born?  I've asked twice (or is it three times?).

Are you unable to understand what i wrote due to a translator or just not up to this? Don't answer, i already know. I can't see what presumed hypocrisy you're gesturing at. There's nothing about feelings in what i wrote. It's like you're desperately trying to look for any loophole in what i'm saying but failing along at every step. But i'll break this down even simpler. Read slowly if you have to, pay attention to the highlighted parts they'll help you:

 

1) A child feels and thinks things, it's a person now so to abandon one would be a wrong thing to do against a person. The child will cry and develop negative emotions and be subject to abuse that the child will be consciously aware of.

2) A fetus is not a person, it's not even close to being a baby so it won't and can't mind if the mother decides to abort it. It won't cry and develop negative emotions and suffer in poverty and it'll never be consciously aware of anything because it hasn't finished forming yet.

 

There is no version of this where you can make me look like i'm contradicting myself, no matter how hard you try. But i appreciate the effort nonetheless.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Oh, and those that are born with defects, ie that are not "finished forming" they aren't people?  Wow.  News to me.  Come on, pick facts or pick feelings.  You can't have both.  You are fence hopping to cherry pick talking points.  Pick your side and embrace it.  Unless you don't really believe what you think you believe?

LOL i had a felling it'll come down to insults now, it's a classic conservative tactic. Inadvertently calling me retarded won't change the facts i've laid in front of you. You can insult me, pout, gishgallop, misconstrue my arguments to point at assumed hypocrisy and rant to your heart's content but your moral panic anti-science talking points will never work.

 

I also find it rather funny that such a spiteful person like you are tasked with moderation on this site. Let me risk a ban here and say that insulting people out of desperation when you start losing an argument makes you categorically unfit for the role of moderating anything. I guess the site owner couldn't give enough of a fuck to hire more suitable people for this task if people like you can get such a position.

 

I'm not even angry, i'm just disappointed in you.

Link to post

Oh boy, an abortion debate on a porn site. This should be informative and well researched.

9 hours ago, gregathit said:

Oh, right.  So leaches should still be used and if you can't see something with your naked eye (like germs and bacteria and viruses) then it doesn't exist and blah, blah, blah.  Medical science is by no means fixed.  It continues to redefine what it thought it knew over and over and over.  As for a fetus not being a baby, where is biological proof that there is a deference?  Where is the change point?  Is pixy fair dust involved?  I think you are illiterate when it comes to medical science.  You believe what you are told.   Science is about questioning things.

 

Leaching is very much a facet of modern medicine. Such as when a foreign object leaches toxins into the body, or when a malformed placenta kills the mother by leaching critical nutrients from the blood stream.

 

If you were trying to refer to the creatures known as leeches, those are also still used. If you can convince your local hospital to let you browse the refrigeration units in their pharmacy, you will likely find a package of them right next to the maggots.

 

As to a biological difference between a foetus and a baby?

There is one single clear difference; a foetus is the scientific name for an entity prior to birth. "Baby" is much harder to properly quantify because it is used in so many different contexts and settings. But you are clearly getting at the usage in medical science, in which case it is generally used to refer to an entity after birth. That is the distinction; before, or after excretion and systematic separation from the mother.

 

 

It seems like you're the one suffering from medical (and maybe general) illiteracy.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Captain Cobra said:

Way too many weirdos walking out in the middle of the street (and freeway!) these past few nights.  They're in dark clothing too so you have to dodge them at the last second.

Wait! Yours wear clothing?

Link to post

Having a thing, and then... not having it - with absolutely NO idea where the hell I put it.  Damn it, I NEED this thing!  Where the hell is it???

The ONE time I didn't immediately put it in its dedicated spot: POOF!

Link to post

Man some people are airheads. Once a "medical" or whatever term gets trendy, they're like these mad kids getting a balloon at mcdonald, waving it in every fucking direction hitting people with it, and soon they become the fucking balloon itself and their whole lives and persona is defined by it. Then they start conversations with branding everything and the slightest thing; like soon even a fucking popsicle is gonna be neurodivergent & bipolar; you tell them to fuck off and they pull the victim card like it's the winning card at fucking UNO of life. What's wrong with them kind of fucks. Bonus: Fucking Fuck.

Link to post

This one is going ballistic already and it was only announced earlier today.

Manchester United have signed up as have Liverpool. United fans are on the warpath and I can't see 'pool fans taking it lightly.

European Super League.

 

Link to post
15 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

This one is going ballistic already and it was only announced earlier today.

Manchester United have signed up as have Liverpool. United fans are on the warpath and I can't see 'pool fans taking it lightly.

European Super League.

 

 

No great surprise really, Football's just a business now. The fans will whinge a bit then carry on watching as before.

 

I was sorry to see Spurs sold out though, I have fond memories of Whitehart Lane back in the days when Jimmy Grieves was still playing

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Slorm said:

Football's just a business now.

Football clubs have always been businesses, this is about the business model. They want to turn it into the American franchise shit like the NBL (is that basket- or base- ball? Who outside N America gives a shit?).

Not found a fan site yet where they are not ashamed and disgusted by their club's involvement in this. Not looked at a Chelsea site yet but United, City, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal fans all gutted.

 

Anger, passion and humour:

As the man says at the end of the vid: "If you're a United fan and support this then go and boil your face".

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

Football clubs have always been businesses, this is about the business model.

:classic_undecided: That reminds me of my father who left a then and now premium league football club in anger. Because it became more business - instead of being all about the sport

Link to post

Well, that's what we humans are good at: perverting any noble idea.

 

My favorite in recent times the "information society" that was talked a lot about around tthe start of the last decade, here at least. Basically, give everyone access to internet, and people will be smarter since they have all the information in the world on their fingertips.

 

And the reality? Social media with it's bubbles, conspiracy theories at all time high, flat earthers.

 

Doesn't piss me off though, i actually find it fucking hilarious :classic_laugh:

 

 

Link to post
24 minutes ago, worik said:

:classic_undecided: That reminds me of my father who left a then and now premium league football club in anger. Because it became more business - instead of being all about the sport

This is foreign owners - American, Russian and Middle East. Footie clubs are part of a community and have been for over one hundred years. Liverpool and United fans are together on this as are fans from every club I've seen today. Politicians from both sides are against it.

The French, Spanish and Italians seem to have the same opinion as us.

 

The German clubs and the German model are getting a lot of good mentions. Less so Barcelona with their "Més que un club".

PSG aren't one of the clubs but people are suggesting that is because they are Qatari owned and the World Cup will be in Qatar.

 

Link to post
10 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

Football clubs have always been businesses, this is about the business model. They want to turn it into the American franchise shit like the NBL (is that basket- or base- ball? Who outside N America gives a shit?).

Don't look at me. I have no idea why my home country calls it football. The sport in question has very little to do with feet. It looks more like someone is stealing a tv rather than using their feet for anything other than running.

 

Also NBL. Is that National Bitch League?

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...