Options

Roman Polanski: he made a thriller

16566687071

Posts

  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    ITT Atomic Ross supports letting a child rapist go free.

    so are you running for office or something?

    No just pointing out a fact.

    If you are against Polanski's extradition, then you are supporting a child rapist going free.

    Just figured I'd remind people of that little fact.

    I don't think anyone has forgotten about it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at

    So why do you question what Pata has to say then?

    I just don't see the point of stating the obvious over and over

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Lanz wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'm reminded why I have never felt utilitarianism to be a useful philosophy and why it annoys the everliving hell out of me

    yeah if you're big into punishment vengeance I can see how it wouldn't be for you

    If wanting criminals held accountable to the laws they break in whatever country they break them in makes me a vengeful little badger, well, I guess I'm fine with that.
    angrybadger.jpgEXTRADITION!
    Motion to nominate "Vengeance Badger" as thread mascot
    You mean rape of a minor isn't reason enough? I guess that's where you lose us.

    Then you're easily lost when justifying a utilitarian demand for incarceration.

    Plus, you're not paying attention. Please read the gist of the thread (or at least the last few pages) before derailing it.

    Ross?

    Ross?

    Not everyone believes that Utilitarianism is the best moral framework.

    You don't get to say "No, your ideas are terrible and do not work" Because they do not adhere to a utilitarian framework.

    There are plenty of utilitarians -- most likely the vast majority of utilitarians -- who would find Ross's position totally laughable.

    See: rule utilitarianism.

    The pants-on-head version of utilitarianism that Ross espouses would create all kinds of perverse incentives: you could commit any crime you want, so long as you have the ability to make the act of capturing and sentencing you costly enough for the prosecution.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think that plenty of pedophiles would be willing to do that, actually, since most of them can't emigrate to france (or for that matter, any other first world country.) If all the pedophiles want to ship out to somalia, that is an outcome I would be happy with.

    We can continue going around and around about this if you like, but I don't think I've been unclear:

    If a criminal can't return to this country to re-offend and there are no other extenuating issues at play, I don't think there is any point to extraditing them.

    And we're back to: Rich French citizens can commit whatever crimes they like so long as they don't come back to do it a second time.

    Quid on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think that plenty of pedophiles would be willing to do that, actually, since most of them can't emigrate to france (or for that matter, any other first world country.) If all the pedophiles want to ship out to somalia, that is an outcome I would be happy with.

    We can continue going around and around about this if you like, but I don't think I've been unclear:

    If a criminal can't return to this country to re-offend and there are no other extenuating issues at play, I don't think there is any point to extraditing them.

    And we're back to: Rich French citizens can commit whatever crimes they like so long as they don't come back to do it a second time.

    Seriously "Look man as long as he doesn't kill anyone else I mean what does it matter?"

    It's a retarded argument and undermines the rule of law. Its already bad enough in this country rich/famous people have a different justice system all together.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    The pants-on-head version of utilitarianism that Ross espouses would create all kinds of perverse incentives: you could commit any crime you want, so long as you have the ability to make the act of capturing and sentencing you costly enough for the prosecution.

    This is how things are right now. John McCain nonwithstanding, we generally will not go all the way to the gates of hell to apprehend a criminal. We are arguing about the utility of pursuing a very specific criminal, here in this thread.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think that plenty of pedophiles would be willing to do that, actually, since most of them can't emigrate to france (or for that matter, any other first world country.) If all the pedophiles want to ship out to somalia, that is an outcome I would be happy with.

    We can continue going around and around about this if you like, but I don't think I've been unclear:

    If a criminal can't return to this country to re-offend and there are no other extenuating issues at play, I don't think there is any point to extraditing them.

    And we're back to: Rich French citizens can commit whatever crimes they like so long as they don't come back to do it a second time.

    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    So we're supposed to wait until it's actually a huge problem before arresting people for the crime? I'd rather not wait to become the new Thailand before we decide that maybe pedophiles should be arrested.

    Quid on
  • Options
    Kevin CristKevin Crist I make the devil hit his knees and say the 'our father'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    The fact that it happened Once is a problem for me.

    Kevin Crist on
    acpRlGW.jpg
    Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    The pants-on-head version of utilitarianism that Ross espouses would create all kinds of perverse incentives: you could commit any crime you want, so long as you have the ability to make the act of capturing and sentencing you costly enough for the prosecution.

    This is how things are right now. John McCain nonwithstanding, we generally will not go all the way to the gates of hell to apprehend a criminal. We are arguing about the utility of pursuing a very specific criminal, here in this thread.

    We're not going all the way to the gates of Hell to apprehend Polanski here. We've made an extradition request. This is really nothing special. You just think it is because Polanski is famous so his case is noteworthy. Extradition requests get made all the time.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    So we're supposed to wait until it's actually a huge problem before arresting people for the crime? I'd rather not wait to become the new Thailand before we decide that maybe pedophiles should be arrested.

    Arresting them has never been the issue. As long as the accused are within the US, every penalty under the law still applies.

    What I've said is that the availability for your hypothetical pedo-tourism has been in place the entire 30 years Polanski has been freed, yet no one has shown me where his non-arrest has led to this rape industry you're very worried about.

    You're absolutely within your right to make your argument, except for the fact the situation you've been railing against possibly occurring has had more than ample opportunity to come into existence, and concordantly the laws regarding extradition haven't really changed.

    Basically, you're trying to sell flood insurance in Arizona because it rained that one time.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    So we're supposed to wait until it's actually a huge problem before arresting people for the crime? I'd rather not wait to become the new Thailand before we decide that maybe pedophiles should be arrested.

    Arresting them has never been the issue. As long as the accused are within the US, every penalty under the law still applies.

    What I've said is that the availability for your hypothetical pedo-tourism has been in place the entire 30 years Polanski has been freed, yet no one has shown me where his non-arrest has led to this rape industry you're very worried about.

    You're absolutely within your right to make your argument, except for the fact the situation you've been railing against possibly occurring has had more than ample opportunity to come into existence, and concordantly the laws regarding extradition haven't really changed.

    Basically, you're trying to sell flood insurance in Arizona because it rained that one time.

    You're arguing from a false premise. The pedo-tourism has arguably not happened, because we extradite those motherfuckers.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    So we're supposed to wait until it's actually a huge problem before arresting people for the crime? I'd rather not wait to become the new Thailand before we decide that maybe pedophiles should be arrested.

    Unless a decision not to extradite polanski is accompanied by the repeal of laws against kidnapping, prostitution, and for that matter child labor, I don't think we need to worry about the U.S. turning into thailand.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    So we're supposed to wait until it's actually a huge problem before arresting people for the crime? I'd rather not wait to become the new Thailand before we decide that maybe pedophiles should be arrested.

    Unless a decision not to extradite polanski is accompanied by the repeal of laws against kidnapping, prostitution, and for that matter child labor, I don't think we need to worry about the U.S. turning into thailand.

    How are we supposed to enforce those laws against people who run away to another country? This isn't the 16th century where transportation was rather slow.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    So we're supposed to wait until it's actually a huge problem before arresting people for the crime? I'd rather not wait to become the new Thailand before we decide that maybe pedophiles should be arrested.

    Unless a decision not to extradite polanski is accompanied by the repeal of laws against kidnapping, prostitution, and for that matter child labor, I don't think we need to worry about the U.S. turning into thailand.

    But by your very logic we should only enforce those laws whenever you feel like it rather than consistently.

    So if it's just a small number of kids getting raped we should bother extraditing the criminals?

    Quid on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Clearly we have a difference of opinion about whether "pedo-tourism" is something that will ever become a problem.

    So we're supposed to wait until it's actually a huge problem before arresting people for the crime? I'd rather not wait to become the new Thailand before we decide that maybe pedophiles should be arrested.

    Unless a decision not to extradite polanski is accompanied by the repeal of laws against kidnapping, prostitution, and for that matter child labor, I don't think we need to worry about the U.S. turning into thailand.

    How are we supposed to enforce those laws against people who run away to another country? This isn't the 16th century where transportation was rather slow.

    strangely enough a sex trafficking industry would require infrastructure to exist in this country

    which, oh hey, we have laws against

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    strangely enough a sex trafficking industry would require infrastructure to exist in this country

    which, oh hey, we have laws against
    You are assuming it would have to be organized and are assuming that the authorities find out about it by the time the person has already left the country. You are also assuming that people never manage to get away.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Laws: not worth enforcing if it's just a few rich people breaking them anyway.

    Quid on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'm reminded why I have never felt utilitarianism to be a useful philosophy and why it annoys the everliving hell out of me

    yeah if you're big into punishment vengeance I can see how it wouldn't be for you

    If wanting criminals held accountable to the laws they break in whatever country they break them in makes me a vengeful little badger, well, I guess I'm fine with that.
    angrybadger.jpgEXTRADITION!
    Motion to nominate "Vengeance Badger" as thread mascot
    You mean rape of a minor isn't reason enough? I guess that's where you lose us.

    Then you're easily lost when justifying a utilitarian demand for incarceration.

    Plus, you're not paying attention. Please read the gist of the thread (or at least the last few pages) before derailing it.

    Ross?

    Ross?

    Not everyone believes that Utilitarianism is the best moral framework.

    You don't get to say "No, your ideas are terrible and do not work" Because they do not adhere to a utilitarian framework.

    There are plenty of utilitarians -- most likely the vast majority of utilitarians -- who would find Ross's position totally laughable.

    See: rule utilitarianism.

    The pants-on-head version of utilitarianism that Ross espouses would create all kinds of perverse incentives: you could commit any crime you want, so long as you have the ability to make the act of capturing and sentencing you costly enough for the prosecution.

    I had forgotten the existence of Rule Utilitarianism.

    I imagine then that what Ross is trying to argue therefore is Act Utilitarianism?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    strangely enough a sex trafficking industry would require infrastructure to exist in this country

    which, oh hey, we have laws against
    You are assuming it would have to be organized and are assuming that the authorities find out about it by the time the person has already left the country. You are also assuming that people never manage to get away.

    He also assumes that such an industry does not actually exist

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    There are plenty of utilitarians -- most likely the vast majority of utilitarians -- who would find Ross's position totally laughable.

    See: rule utilitarianism.

    The pants-on-head version of utilitarianism that Ross espouses would create all kinds of perverse incentives: you could commit any crime you want, so long as you have the ability to make the act of capturing and sentencing you costly enough for the prosecution.

    Or alternately provide zero disincentive to punish you for any crime you do if the utility lost by jailing you exceeds that of the jailing you. World class heart surgeon? Would you like to rape someone today?

    Luckily, sane people recognize rights and don't believe that the criminal justice system is a business transaction. Or that making the effort to capture someone who commits a crime doesn't in any way act as a deterrent for that matter.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Basically, you're trying to sell flood insurance in Arizona because it rained that one time.

    Not to point out that you once again are talking out of your ass or anything, but there are class A flood zones all over the place in Arizona. I own a home in Yuma, where we get a couple inches of rain per year, and I am required to buy flood insurance because there is still a greater than 1% chance that our annual rainstorm will flood the first floor.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/03/polanski.release/
    Polanski agreed to pay his sexual assault victim $500,000 to settle a damage claim she filed against him nearly 12 years after the crime, according to court papers released October 2.

    Polanski still owed the money -- plus $100,000 in interest -- three years after the 1993 settlement, according to the documents.

    The victim sought money for damages suffered when Polanski had sex with her. She claimed that Polanski plied her with alcohol and quaaludes during a photo shoot at the Hollywood Hills home of actor Jack Nicholson.

    It's not clear whether Polanski completed paying the debt to the woman, although the court papers document efforts by her lawyers to garnish residuals and other payments owed to Polanski by the Screen Actors Guild, movie studios and other Hollywood businesses.
    :?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    This happened at Jack Nicholson's house? Was he there? What does he have to say about all this?

    Yar on
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    This happened at Jack Nicholson's house? Was he there? What does he have to say about all this?

    To my knowledge, Jack Nicholson basically shunned Polanski and refuses to talk to him or about him.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Well that's silly. Isn't he aware that there's no utility in refusing to talk to someone that's raped a minor in your house?

    Quid on
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Basically, you're trying to sell flood insurance in Arizona because it rained that one time.

    This is a hilariously terrible analogy because flooding actually is a danger in Arizona percicely because it rains so little. The ground can't absorb all the water when there's heavy rain (the dirt is hard and very compact) so it has nowhere to go. So you get flash floods.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    So hes 'free' tomorrow. Are we taking bets on him fleeing again or not?

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So hes 'free' tomorrow. Are we taking bets on him fleeing again or not?

    Why bet on a sure thing?

    Cinders on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    So Polanski's extradition has been rejected.
    Authorities in Switzerland have decided not to extradite film director Roman Polanski to the US to face sentencing for a case dating back to 1977.

    Polanski, 76, has been under house arrest in his Swiss chalet since December 2009 pending the decision.

    He is wanted in the US over a conviction for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

    The Swiss Justice Minister said the "measures of restriction on his liberty have been lifted."

    The last part makes it sound like his house arrest has been lifted as well.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Shame Batman cannot batplane in, kick his guards butts, and dump him on the steps of Gotham PD, or just shoot him.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I guess Switzerland and the Catholic Church can be bffs now, since they both love protecting pedophiles.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I guess Switzerland and the Catholic Church can be bffs now, since they both love protecting pedophiles.

    Pretty much.

    Don't we have teams of people who specialize in abducting random people with arab-sounding names off the street in foreign countries?

    Is there some reason these guys can't handle a dude like Polanski?

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    $5 says the IRS comes down hard on anyone with a Swiss bank account next tax season.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I guess Switzerland and the Catholic Church can be bffs now, since they both love protecting pedophiles.

    Pretty much.

    Don't we have teams of people who specialize in abducting random people with arab-sounding names off the street in foreign countries?

    Is there some reason these guys can't handle a dude like Polanski?

    I think an independent citizen did this once with some French citizen who had run away to another country. Would be nice if it happened to Polanski, looks like he got away with it, thanks to those meddlesome kids.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I guess Switzerland and the Catholic Church can be bffs now, since they both love protecting pedophiles.

    Pretty much.

    Don't we have teams of people who specialize in abducting random people with arab-sounding names off the street in foreign countries?

    Is there some reason these guys can't handle a dude like Polanski?

    Heh

    Americans being outraged over justice denied

    Heh

    Robman on
  • Options
    TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mxmarks wrote: »
    Am I wrong, or wasn't the 13 year old his cousin too?

    That was Edgar Allen Poe.

    Topweasel on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.
    What?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Maybe the Swiss had a few too many light-side points and needed to do something evil in order to regain their True Neutral alignment.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROMAN_POLANSKI?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-07-12-09-02-26
    The Oscar-winning director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

    In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.

    Based on references to Gunson's testimony in U.S. courts, the Swiss said it "should prove" that Polanski served his sentence after undergoing 42 days of diagnostic study.

    "If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said.

    That isn't what happened according to most reports.
    In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five of the initial charges were to be dismissed.[63] He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful intercourse with a minor, a charge which is synonymous under Californian law with statutory rape.[63][64] The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time,[65] in response the film maker was ordered to a 90 day psychiatric evaluation at the Chino state prison.[66] On 28 January 1978 Polanski was released after 42 days.[67] Despite expectations and recommendations that he would receive only probation at sentencing, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that more jail time and possible deportation were in order.[64][68] Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France on 1 February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[61] As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition and has mostly lived in France, avoiding countries likely to extradite him.[69] Because he fled prior to sentencing, all six of the original charges remain pending.[70]
    Judges don't agree to plea bargains and don't drop charges. You suck AP.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Maybe the Swiss had a few too many light-side points and needed to do something evil in order to regain their True Neutral alignment.

    "What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

    KalTorak on
Sign In or Register to comment.