Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Moderators in Persistent Violation of Forum Rules

This post has 62 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem Posted: Tue, Jun 16 2009 9:07 PM | Locked

You would think Rule #5 is pretty clear when it says "Signatures may not contain images or links."

Charles Anthony and liberty student, you get the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you haven't read the rules which you enforce as moderators, and which you agree to by signing up for an account. But now there is no longer an excuse. You guys are in persistent violation of Rule #5.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 9:09 PM | Locked

hashem:

You would think Rule #5 is pretty clear when it says "Signatures may not contain images or links."

Charles Anthony and liberty student, you get the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you haven't read the rules which you enforce as moderators, and which you agree to by signing up for an account. But now there is no longer an excuse. You guys are in persistent violation of Rule #5.

Snarky, but correct.  If this thread is closed or deleted, it will not be by me.

Although, I think this might be a case of negligence, not intentional violation.  Editing a signature is a bit of a benign thing to remember to do, honestly; I had almost done the same thing linking to mine the other day when I remembered it was a rule lol.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810
Andrew Cain replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 9:35 PM | Locked

Liberty is so ingrained with anarchistic tendencies that he defies rules like a bird defies gravity. Fly free liberty...fly free.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 9:50 PM | Locked

Kinda like how police are so enfatuated with justice that they disregard laws as they please, and enforce them when they feel like it.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:04 PM | Locked

Some of the images have actually been "approved" by the Mises staff, e.g. Jeff Tucker really liking the calculation ani-gif.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955
laminustacitus replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:06 PM | Locked

hashem:

Kinda like how police are so enfatuated with justice that they disregard laws as they please, and enforce them when they feel like it.

There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws, it is that, not the literal laws, that matters. Notice how links are in the topic area of "Spam," and how the reason for this is not to have forum members advertise, and promote material on other website. In that light, it is obvious that neither libertystudent, nor Charles Anthony have violated the spirit of the laws since their links are both to the mises forums, and are on relevent topics.

By the way, if you actually desire to point our rule violations to moderators, pming is the optimal method.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:11 PM | Locked

laminustacitus:

hashem:

Kinda like how police are so enfatuated with justice that they disregard laws as they please, and enforce them when they feel like it.

There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws, it is that, not the literal laws, that matters. Notice how links are in the topic area of "Spam," and how the reason for this is not to have forum members advertise, and promote material on other website. In that light, it is obvious that neither libertystudent, nor Charles Anthony have violated the spirit of the laws since their links are both to the mises forums, and are on relevent topics.

By the way, if you actually desire to point our rule violations to moderators, pming is the optimal method.



This is also true.  Many used to have a link to their blog, as did many other have links in their sigs to outside sites which would constitute advertising, but since then members have revised their sigs. 

While technically true in the sense that the links in the sigs in question advertise the mises forum, one could hardly see how this constitutes spam since it advertises the forum itself, which is a good thing for the forum. 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810
Andrew Cain replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:20 PM | Locked

I obviously see the relation between forum moderators and police officers.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:35 PM | Locked

laminustacitus:
There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws, it is that, not the literal laws, that matters.

lol. OK because for a second I thought it said "Signatures may not contain images or links." My fault. I guess it's kinda curious how they didn't manage to mention anything like the "spirit of the rules" anywhere in the rules. Perhaps you've heard of the concept "the rule of law"?

I think anyone who lives in the U.S.A. knows where this spirit of the law concept goes. It's nowhere pretty. I would take the literal interpretation and the rule of law any day. But then, those with power always prefer their own interpretation don't they.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Stranger replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:40 PM | Locked

I found that signature links were a great method to reduce the number of newbie questions thread.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 985
Points 17,110
Stephen replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 11:07 PM | Locked

Signatures are peanuts. I personally don't see any problem with them. Even if they advertise outside blogs. It would only be a problem if it advertised commercial products, because then we would start attracting people more interested in selling than discussing economics or libertarianism.

If anything, Moderators can  be exceptionally rude and insulting. Now, I'm extremely partial so I won't point out all the moderators I've seen doing this. But I will point out that this Knight_of_BAAWA guy seriously needs some moderation.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:20 AM | Locked

Perhaps the rule should be altered or loosened slightly? I like the link in Liberty Student's profile, it just links to a helpful forum thread.

And... if moderators are rude, insulting, or in flagrant violation of any serious rule, report it.  Mods should be held to a higher standard, if anything, and I'm sure they will be since it reflects on LvMI's image.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:03 AM | Locked

Ansury:
Mods should be held to a higher standard

One would think that is a given. But if you read the rules and look at the history of mod activity here, you will see they tend to be more like rule-breaking powermongers. There can be no denying that they are aware now of their persistent defiance of the terms in Rule #5: "Signatures may not contain images or links."

I've used forums for half of my life, and in my experience, forums where the rules are unclear and the mods are not held strictly to them never run as well as they could. It tends to make the mods look bad and more like typical elites than keepers of the peace.

It's sort of awkward how mods can ban people not just for violating rules, but literally because they feel like it. And yet they do not have to follow the rules themselves? So much for the higher standard.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:57 AM | Locked

There's also such a thing as protesting just a bit too much and pouting, hashem. And you're doing it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:38 AM | Locked

Stephen Forde:
But I will point out that this Knight_of_BAAWA guy seriously needs some moderation.

I disagree, i think KoB should be a double moderator.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:44 AM | Locked

Well there's always a higher authority than the mods, so if someone writes something in poor judgement, abuse report it.  I don't see a major problem, unless you have some examples of more serious abuses that have gone unpunished.  (I don't think this one is such a big deal.)  But I am biased in this case because I think the image/link rule is a little too extreme. Hmm

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Jon Irenicus replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:14 AM | Locked

But I will point out that this Knight_of_BAAWA guy seriously needs some moderation.

No, not really.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:25 PM | Locked

Ok so even the mods admit that they won't enforce or abide the rules. Further, pointing this out is considered "pouting". Congratulations you guys are awesome role models for all members and future moderators to follow. Great work team. Let's all give a big round of applause for these consistent and principled keepers of the peace. We all hope to follow in your footsteps one day.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040
malgratloprekindle replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:27 PM | Locked

Anarchist Cain:
I obviously see the relation between forum moderators and police officers.

So I'm not the only one who sees the irony in a forum full of Anarcho-Capitalists with moderators and administrators. Stick out tongue

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Jon Irenicus replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:31 PM | Locked

Clubs are administered by their owners or their designates, no? So how is this inconsistent with anarcho-capitalist principles? Answer: it isn't.

Regarding mods and violations of so-called rules (I don't even know why the one regarding signatures exists and I do not enforce it), I don't recall being assertive being one of them, so I've no idea what "moderating" KoB needs.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:31 PM | Locked

its illustrative of the spontaneous order that individuals owning private property can create

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:41 PM | Locked

While we're shredding the sanctity of forum rules, would the mods mind pointing out any others we can all blatantly violate simply because we don't agree with them?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Jon Irenicus replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:44 PM | Locked

Only that one, really.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955
laminustacitus replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:51 PM | Locked

hashem:

While we're shredding the sanctity of forum rules...

The forum rules are not sacred, they are not an ends to themselves. The forum rules are a means to achieving a peaceful, and productive forum.

 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:54 PM | Locked

By "the forum rules" you mean "some forum rules, but not others." Right? Or do you mean all forum rules, regardless of whether you agree with them or not?

It should be noted that invariably among internet forums, the only rule that ever seems to be enforced (indeed, to even be attempted to be followed by the very moderators assigned to maintaining that forum rules are followed) is the vague "don't be rude" rule. Most powermongers pretend that it is their duty to guarantee that everybody "stays in line", so they can smack anybody down for violating the golden rule. But like many members, moderators inevitably find that they disagree with some rules, and further they find themselves in the unique position to pick and choose among them which to follow without consequence. Thus they often find themselves looking like police, who disregard speed limit laws because "there are more important laws to follow", or because "at least we aren't selling crack." They tend to forget the rule of law, that rules are to be followed, and that they are charged with making it so.

And really, who can do anything to rectify the situation except the very moderators who benefit from the power to disregard whichever rules they please? Certainly not the moderated masses, who are laughed out of court for daring to point out the obvious violations of the moderators.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 743
Points 11,795
auctionguy10 replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:01 PM | Locked

Yeah I'm not exactly sure what would constitute a bannable offense?

What behavior isn't exactly allowed?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:04 PM | Locked

auctionguy10:
Yeah I'm not exactly sure what would constitute a bannable offense?

You'll never be sure, because there are none. Instead, the moderators can ban people at will, whether or not it is proved that the banned did indeed violate forum policy. The problem is that the forum rules are so flimsy and transparently fallacious and contradictory and impossible that not even the mods attempt to follow all of them. Only principled people dare to follow rules when they could easily slime along in clear violation of them.

auctionguy10:
What behavior isn't exactly allowed?

Well, for example, "Signatures may not contain images or links."

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 65
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 743
Points 11,795
auctionguy10 replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:46 PM | Locked

Well- I mean I have seen members here being banned before, and not for any specific forum rules.  So maybe the mods that banned them can explain why they came to that conclusion so we can avoid that particular type of behavior?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800
Harry Felker replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:54 PM | Locked

hashem:
You'll never be sure, because there are none. Instead, the moderators can ban people at will, whether or not it is proved that the banned did indeed violate forum policy. The problem is that the forum rules are so flimsy and transparently fallacious and contradictory and impossible that not even the mods attempt to follow all of them. Only principled people dare to follow rules when they could easily slime along in clear violation of them.

Dude, is this really an issue for you?

I mean after all the allegations you throw at mods, I do not see you banned at will?

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:23 PM | Locked

Why not just ask to have the rule changed or clarified instead of discussing it's relevance or validity?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 170
Points 3,275
Arvin replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:25 PM | Locked

Seriously hashem, you can't apply "rule of law" to forum rules.
If I have a rule in my house that states that no-one can use curse words (I do not have this rule), and I drop something on my foot and start to use curse words, is that a problem? No.

There's no such thing as "rule of law" on forums, the only rule on forums is "might makes right". In this case it's a very libertarian principle. Go read Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden's brothet starts talking about "freedom of speech", Rearden gets pissed and says "not in my house". That's the libertarian way, like it or leave it.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:42 PM | Locked
Well, I'd guess that hashem is upset because liberty student told hashem he was not abiding by rules when he[hashem] suggested that one of the posters was a bit...retarded.

But maybe hashem did have a point...Dunno, why can't people who say foolish things be called 'fools' without breaking any rule...

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:44 PM | Locked
Go read Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden's brothet starts talking about "freedom of speech", Rearden gets pissed and says "not in my house". That's the libertarian way, like it or leave it.
LOL !! So love it or leave it the libertarian way ? Maybe Rearden should have refuted his brother ? Or completely prevented him from entering his house. But the idea that you get to control what your guests say is totalitarian nonsense.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:08 PM | Locked

Juan:
But the idea that you get to control what your guests say is totalitarian nonsense.

this is a strawman juan...

you get to control whether your guests can stay. and you advise them how to behave so that they can improve their chances of being allowed to stay...

if they want to upset you and get thrown out, then they are free to do so.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:13 PM | Locked

Anarchist Cain:
Liberty is so ingrained with anarchistic tendencies that he defies rules like a bird defies gravity. Fly free liberty...fly free.

laminustacitus:
There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws

Nitroadict:
While technically true...[advertising]...is a good thing for the forum.

Stranger:
I found that signature links were a great method to reduce the number of newbie questions thread.

Stephen Forde:
I personally don't see any problem with them. Even if they advertise outside blogs.

Ansury:
Perhaps the rule should be altered or loosened slightly?

Knight_of_BAAWA:
There's also such a thing as..pouting, hashem. And you're doing it.

Ansury:
unless you have some examples of more serious abuses that have gone unpunished.  (I don't think this one is such a big deal.)

laminustacitus:
The forum rules are not sacred

Harry Felker:
Dude, is this really an issue for you?

Arvin:
Seriously hashem

Or...the mods could follow the forum rules. Just thought I'd throw that one out there. It seems like a revolutionary idea among the crowd here. *Jury gasps* *Whispers go around -- Did he just suggest what I thought he just suggested?! Moderators have to follow rules?! Somebody shut him up!*

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 867
Points 17,790
Sphairon replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:16 PM | Locked

Great post above. Seconded.


  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:32 PM | Locked

hashem:

Anarchist Cain:
Liberty is so ingrained with anarchistic tendencies that he defies rules like a bird defies gravity. Fly free liberty...fly free.

laminustacitus:
There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws

Nitroadict:
While technically true...[advertising]...is a good thing for the forum.

Stranger:
I found that signature links were a great method to reduce the number of newbie questions thread.

Stephen Forde:
I personally don't see any problem with them. Even if they advertise outside blogs.

Ansury:
Perhaps the rule should be altered or loosened slightly?

Knight_of_BAAWA:
There's also such a thing as..pouting, hashem. And you're doing it.

Ansury:
unless you have some examples of more serious abuses that have gone unpunished.  (I don't think this one is such a big deal.)

laminustacitus:
The forum rules are not sacred

Harry Felker:
Dude, is this really an issue for you?

Arvin:
Seriously hashem

Or...the mods could follow the forum rules. Just thought I'd throw that one out there. It seems like a revolutionary idea among the crowd here. *Jury gasps* *Whispers go around -- Did he just suggest what I thought he just suggested?! Moderators have to follow rules?! Somebody shut him up!*

And yet I did not advocate nor approve advertising in violation of the rules. 

I surmised / rationalized, in an attempt to understand the violation of the particular rule, that the signature link to a thread in the same forum was allowed because it was advertising for the forum, thus not spam, & that advertising is probably in the interests of who owns the forums (which would not be me, or the mods). 

If i did own the forums or any other forums for that matter, I personally would not be so flexible with the rules to prevent this such a type of contradiction, which I agree haseem, it is.

I hope you do not include me in the critique of mods, since I barley do any modding around here except for occasionally deleting the obvious spam accounts that register here, in an attempt to prevent more spam accounts (since usually, the spam accounts signal to other spammers that this forum can be spammed, thus more come to spam). 

In pretty much every instance where someone is proposed for banning, or a thread closed, deleted, I either keep silent or object, due to my own views of modding being in possible conflict with my own morals and/or ethical views (despite the legitimacy of such modding & rules existing under private property, which would be these forums, methinks). 

And no before you or anyone asks, not just any account can be considered a spam account, there are obvious tell tale signs such as:

+ a huge list of keywords in their profile that link to outside blog spam, site spam, etc.

+ a member history of consistently posting off-topic threads such as "Shop for Nikes etc." that link to outside blog spam, site spam etc.


So yea, my 2cents.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:43 PM | Locked

My opinion is that the forum rules are simply 'cider house rules', they are a guide, they are advice. if you understand them and they help you great. if you cant comprehend them, or you don't like them, too bad.as Block is fond of saying, if you can't tell the difference between a living room and a toilet, dont come to my house...

at the end of the day the LvMi own the forum and they can ban who they want how they want, and they can also assign mods who can assign mods. and if they wanted to junk mods, thats in their power too. the posted rules are not one half of a Rothbardian title-transfer contract. as a poster you have no property right to anything against the LvMi.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:57 PM | Locked

nirgrahamUK:

My opinion is that the forum rules are simply 'cider house rules', they are a guide, they are advice. if you understand them and they help you great. if you cant comprehend them, or you don't like them, too bad.as Block is fond of saying, if you can't tell the difference between a living room and a toilet, dont come to my house...

at the end of the day the LvMi own the forum and they can ban who they want how they want, and they can also assign mods who can assign mods. and if they wanted to junk mods, thats in their power too. the posted rules are not one half of a Rothbardian title-transfer contract. as a poster you have no property right to anything against the LvMi.

OK.......? So yeah, about those moderators violating the forum rules...

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:02 PM | Locked

you obviously have no recourse but to contact a higher authority. good luck with that.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 2 (63 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS