Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, & Full Frontal]

16668707172

Posts

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Forar wrote: »
    Cool, cool.

    Just one question.

    What is a 21 CFR 812 IDE?

    Investigational device exemption. You can use a device for whatever crazy thing and publish data supporting your crazy use to track towards a premarket or full application, which is great in theory since that means there's at least some clinical data about the new use. In practice, the process is surrounded by red tape easy enough for companies to navigate through but difficult for independent investigators who will require, among other things, company internal documents summarizing all the research and FDA records regarding the device, which the FDA is not free to give. This means third party researchers cannot submit an IDE without an explicit blessing from the company of the device they're researching. Furthermore, the FDA audit framework is designed to inspect companies, and they go crazy nuts when auditing a university or research organization that does not own or manufacture the device, finding violation after violation because the process basically assumes that only companies will interact with the FDA. The bureaucracy is the weakest when determining if the study described in the IDE is terrible or not.

    In summary, the FDA IDE process allows fast tracking of potentially crappy studies by companies to support a PMA or (501)k submission by just checking a box without a thorough analysis of study design or results while making it unintuitive and hard for independent investigators with well designed studies to engage in the same process.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    FryKamarevilmrhenry
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • VyolynceVyolynce Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    destroyah87
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    Mississippi didn't get around to ratifying the THIRTEENTH amendment until 1995.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    wanderingSpoitFencingsaxBlackDragon480Man in the MistsKruiteMatev
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    Mississippi didn't get around to ratifying the THIRTEENTH amendment until 1995.
    WHAT THE FUCK.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Registered User regular
    edited June 10
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    I'm actually a little confused (maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing). Looking at the wikipedia article for the list of amendments to the US constitution, and scrolling down to the table showing which states ratified what amendment, the 19th is shown as all states but Alaska and Hawaii having ratified the 19th amendment (as the 19th was ratified before those two states were officially part of the union). Shoot, according to the chart, even Florida ratified it (and they were specifically called out in the video).

    Are we talking about a different kind of ratification process? Is this one of those Federal vs. State things?

    Erlkönig on
    | Origin/R*SC/Steam: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum |
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    I'm actually a little confused (maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing). Looking at the wikipedia article for the list of amendments to the US constitution, and scrolling down to the table showing which states ratified what amendment, the 19th is shown as all states but Alaska and Hawaii having ratified the 19th amendment (as the 19th was ratified before those two states were officially part of the union). Shoot, according to the chart, even Florida ratified it (and they were specifically called out in the video).

    Are we talking about a different kind of ratification process? Is this one of those Federal vs. State things?

    That's women's suffrage. The ERA was a sort of 14th Amendment for gender.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    I guess of those left I feel like it might be Virginia that tips it over to ratification?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • ErlkönigErlkönig Registered User regular
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    I'm actually a little confused (maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing). Looking at the wikipedia article for the list of amendments to the US constitution, and scrolling down to the table showing which states ratified what amendment, the 19th is shown as all states but Alaska and Hawaii having ratified the 19th amendment (as the 19th was ratified before those two states were officially part of the union). Shoot, according to the chart, even Florida ratified it (and they were specifically called out in the video).

    Are we talking about a different kind of ratification process? Is this one of those Federal vs. State things?

    That's women's suffrage. The ERA was a sort of 14th Amendment for gender.

    Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    | Origin/R*SC/Steam: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum |
  • VyolynceVyolynce Registered User regular
    I guess of those left I feel like it might be Virginia that tips it over to ratification?

    Probably. My picks would be Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida in that order although that 2nd one might just be wishful thinking.

  • RickRudeRickRude Registered User regular
    This is all mind blowing to me.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I guess of those left I feel like it might be Virginia that tips it over to ratification?

    They were like a couple votes in House of Delegates seats from doing it in this session. If Dems take the State House this fall (I think?) there's a decent chance. Then we'd need the enabling legislation to extend the deadline from Congress.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Fencingsax
  • PiotyrPiotyr Registered User regular
    I appreciate that the state flag bit existed entirely to remind us that Mississippi still uses the confederate flag in their state flag.

    VyolynceRickRudeTetraRayKarozFencingsaxdispatch.owanderingJohnny ChopsockyShadowfireMan in the MistsShadowenabotkinMagellKruiteMatev
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 10
    Piotyr wrote: »
    I appreciate that the state flag bit existed entirely to remind us that Mississippi still uses the confederate flag in their state flag.

    Approved in a referendum with a 2/3 majority in 2001! Initially adopted in 1894 as white terrorists seized power throughout the south.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    PreacherBlackDragon480dispatch.owanderingshrykeSpoitShadowenMan in the MistsAistanKamarExtreaminatus
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Piotyr wrote: »
    I appreciate that the state flag bit existed entirely to remind us that Mississippi still uses the confederate flag in their state flag.

    Approved in a referendum with a 2/3 majority in 2001! Initially adopted in 1894 as white terrorists seized power throughout the south.

    They're just proud of their heritage.

    Their heritage as white terrorists.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    AistanwanderingKamarShadowenMorganVLovelyBlackDragon480RichyBigJoeMDoodmannDarkPrimusTetraRayNo-QuarterabotkinRedTideMan in the Mistsdispatch.oKlytusMagellZilla360ShadowhopeMatevshrykenever die
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    *ahem*

    Missouri was not a Confrderate state. :D

    steam_sig.png
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    *ahem*

    Missouri was not a Confrderate state. :D

    steam_sig.png
  • LordSolarMachariusLordSolarMacharius Registered User regular
    edited June 11
    About a quarter of the men from Missouri who fought in the civil war did fight for the Confederacy though.

    Edit: (I'm seeing different numbers upon checking. Either way, a dumb snipe on my part. Similar numbers in general to, for example, the percentage of men from Kentucky who fought for the south, or from Tennessee who fought for the north.)

    LordSolarMacharius on
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    *ahem*

    Missouri was not a Confrderate state. :D

    They just cosplay as one.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    AngelHedgieDoodmannN1tSt4lkerwanderingFencingsaxGvzbgulShadowfireShadowentynicMatevshryke
  • VyolynceVyolynce Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Vyolynce wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    TBF of the 13 states left only, like, two were surprises. Mostly former Confederate states, Arizona, and Utah not being big on equality? This is my shocked face.

    Full disclosure: I currently live in one of these.

    *ahem*

    Missouri was not a Confrderate state. :D

    I did say "mostly".

  • SelnerSelner Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    You would think it's simple, right? But as pointed out by Oliver, the issue was highjacked by crazy people who try to say the amendment would lead to lots of "unintended" consequences.
    One brought up frequently is abortion, that the ERA would hinder the Right's ability to hinder and outlaw abortion.

    I remember reading the articles after Virginia unsuccessfully tried to pass the Amendment earlier this year (February).

    I found some articles from then, and here are some quote from the opponents:
    Opponents said it's an unnecessary measure that would, among other things, loosen abortion regulations.
    Republicans there said ratifying the ERA could lead to a raft of unintended consequences, including making it harder for women-owned businesses to win state contracts.

    That second one is a bit loopy, but I guess the idea is that you wouldn't be able show preference to women owned businesses over men owned businesses in contracting?

    Link for those: https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Virginia-Senate-panel-passes-Equal-Rights-Amendment-504158291.html

    The title in the is kind of wrong I guess? Or I guess it passed the panel, but not the full Senate. Still misleading...

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    About a quarter of the men from Missouri who fought in the civil war did fight for the Confederacy though.

    Edit: (I'm seeing different numbers upon checking. Either way, a dumb snipe on my part. Similar numbers in general to, for example, the percentage of men from Kentucky who fought for the south, or from Tennessee who fought for the north.)

    Missouri basically fought its own civil war with the union side also winning. They had two competing governments and everything.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    a5ehrenThawmusFencingsax
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    About a quarter of the men from Missouri who fought in the civil war did fight for the Confederacy though.

    Edit: (I'm seeing different numbers upon checking. Either way, a dumb snipe on my part. Similar numbers in general to, for example, the percentage of men from Kentucky who fought for the south, or from Tennessee who fought for the north.)

    Missouri basically fought its own civil war with the union side also winning. They had two competing governments and everything.

    They also more or less went to war with Kansas before the Civil War, too.

    ThawmusBlackDragon480RedTide
  • KoopahTroopahKoopahTroopah The koopas, the troopas. Philadelphia, PARegistered User regular
    Partially related to Daily Show, former host Jon Stewart gives an incredibly powerful speech against Congress during the 9/11 Hearing.



    Not sure if it belongs here, but it really is just emotional as all hell.

    ?username=KoopahTroopah&theme=light

    Steam - Battle.net - Koopah089 - PSN/Xbox - 1639-6388-9968/KoopahTroopah - Switch
    TetraRaydispatch.oNobeardMan in the MistsMorganVBrainleechPolaritieShadowenDacForarN1tSt4lkertynicRchanenZilla360AbsoluteZeroZonugalMatevnever die
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Jon is arguing a slight straw man there in that it was not a hearing before the entire Judiciary Committee (why is this bill in Judiciary though?) but the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, so it's a smaller body but held in the full room where Judiciary usually meets. 15 members on the subcommittee. Rep. Cohen says all eight Democrats were there. I recognized him and Jamie Raskin for sure. The others are Swalwell, Scanlon, Dean, Garcia, Escobar, and Lee. Dunno if the GOP reps were there. Would have been Johnson, Gohmert, Jordan, Reschenthaler, Cline, and Armstrong.

    Cross posting that from health care.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited June 11
    About a quarter of the men from Missouri who fought in the civil war did fight for the Confederacy though.

    Edit: (I'm seeing different numbers upon checking. Either way, a dumb snipe on my part. Similar numbers in general to, for example, the percentage of men from Kentucky who fought for the south, or from Tennessee who fought for the north.)

    Missouri basically fought its own civil war with the union side also winning. They had two competing governments and everything.

    IIRC, the newly elected govenor, Clairborne Jackson, planned to have Missouri succeed despite being elected promising not to do exactly that, but then Francis Preston Jr (who dispite being a very, very racist man, was a staunch unionist) caught wind and with the help of the US army under Nathaniel Lyon moved the arsenal in St. Louis to Illinois so Jackson couldn't claim it. Once it became obvious what was happening the state Legislature voted Jackson out of office, but he refused and tried to declare Missouri as the newest Confederate state. Preston's unionist milita and Lyon eventually kicked Jackson first out of Jefferson City, and then drove him out of the state into Arkansas, where he stayed as the self-proclaimed Governor-in-exile until his death a year later.

    Yet despite this amazing story, I never heard about it at all in school in Missouri, and only found out about it less than a year ago.
    About a quarter of the men from Missouri who fought in the civil war did fight for the Confederacy though.

    Edit: (I'm seeing different numbers upon checking. Either way, a dumb snipe on my part. Similar numbers in general to, for example, the percentage of men from Kentucky who fought for the south, or from Tennessee who fought for the north.)

    I blame Ride with the Devil and the actual events that inspire it for Missouri's rep of barely Unionist (that, and the whole Govenor in Exile thing). There were probably many examples of people living on one side fighting for the other, but I don't know of any such other group that went out of their way to try and destroy an entire town in doing so.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
    wanderingArbitraryDescriptor
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    One of the joke setups last night on Seth Meyers ended up being funnier than the punchline. I'll let y'all figure out which one it is.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Selner wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So RE: Last Week Tonight, imagine being one of the states that hasn't ratified a pretty simple anti-discrimination Constitutional Amendment.

    You would think it's simple, right? But as pointed out by Oliver, the issue was highjacked by crazy people who try to say the amendment would lead to lots of "unintended" consequences.
    One brought up frequently is abortion, that the ERA would hinder the Right's ability to hinder and outlaw abortion.

    I remember reading the articles after Virginia unsuccessfully tried to pass the Amendment earlier this year (February).

    I found some articles from then, and here are some quote from the opponents:
    Opponents said it's an unnecessary measure that would, among other things, loosen abortion regulations.
    Republicans there said ratifying the ERA could lead to a raft of unintended consequences, including making it harder for women-owned businesses to win state contracts.

    That second one is a bit loopy, but I guess the idea is that you wouldn't be able show preference to women owned businesses over men owned businesses in contracting?

    Link for those: https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Virginia-Senate-panel-passes-Equal-Rights-Amendment-504158291.html

    The title in the is kind of wrong I guess? Or I guess it passed the panel, but not the full Senate. Still misleading...

    I’m not sure how much of the “feminist” opposition to the ERA was real and how much was false flag nonsense, but yes it would mean that any laws advantaging women specifically would then have to meet higher standards of scrutiny. Points given to women-owned businesses in government contracting are just one example. Excluding women from selective service is another.

    So while I think it’s something that’s unfortunately needed, and should get ratified, I do believe it may have some unintended negative impacts for women. Less in 2019 than fifty years ago. But still nonzero.

    dispatch.oGvzbgulGnome-Interruptus
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I was always a big fan of David Oyelowo, looks like I now have to extend this to his father as well

    NobeardwanderingMorganVN1tSt4lkerKrieghundShadowfireShadowenBlackDragon480Dark Raven XTetraRayAthenorcursedkingForarHellerbooyshryke
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Heeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyy, so we don't have an impeachment thread but...

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    GONG-00BloodsheedDrovekPolaritieTetraRayRchanenZilla360Dark Raven XAbsoluteZero
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    So I've always just paid for HBO but the number of shows I watch has sort of dwindled over the years. I still watch Real Time and now Last Week Tonight, occasionally a movie or special.

    Does LWT just post the main story every Monday? I never watch the clips posted here but am now noticing they're always 20ish minutes long. That's a lot of confidence in the market they hold that people want to subscribe to HBO even when it's not actually necessary.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The main story always gets posted, yeah.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Thawmus
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    The main story always gets posted, yeah.

    Also much of the side content gets uploaded. Not necessarily with the blessing of HBO, but there definitely seems to be an understanding and a desire to spread the news of the show as far as they can.

    Official member of the Grilling Gentry
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    Rarely-updated Collecting blog
    He/Him
    ThawmusShadowfireZilla360Man in the MistsSpoit
  • ThawmusThawmus Registered User regular
    Almost all of Full Frontal gets posted each week too, though not in one video, and sometimes the ordering is off. That's TBS and not HBO, but still.

    I've never actually watched LWT nor Full Frontal, I've only ever watched their YouTube videos.

    steam_sig.png
    honovereChiselphane[Expletive deleted]Lovely
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Holy shit, Donald Trump lost his shit because his Chief of Staff coughed during an interview. I'm dying laughing.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    ThawmusFencingsaxDark Raven XSealShadowfireGnome-InterruptusMagell
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Supposedly he had Scaramucci forcibly injected with penicillin once because of something similar. Which should lose Robby Jackson his medical license...again.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    ThawmusDark Raven X
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=ICnUJl0t0Xw

    So, Jon is ranting about McConnell some more. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the band playing Saria's Song at the start of this clip?

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    ThawmusAbsoluteZeroMatev
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=ICnUJl0t0Xw

    So, Jon is ranting about McConnell some more. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the band playing Saria's Song at the start of this clip?

    Mitch McConnell had to be a petty asshole about Jon Stewart, as well.

    Mitch was on a talk show and was complaining about Stewart making such a big deal about this, like it was inevitable Mitch would approve the money. Mitch went on Stewart was just doing this for attention to raise his profile to run for office, which, what the hell Mitch.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    ThawmusRickRudeFencingsaxKruite
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    And yes, that was Saria's Song at the start of the clip

    Dark Raven XHerrCronFencingsaxAbsoluteZeroKoopahTroopahMatev
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=ICnUJl0t0Xw

    So, Jon is ranting about McConnell some more. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the band playing Saria's Song at the start of this clip?

    Mitch McConnell had to be a petty asshole about Jon Stewart, as well.

    Mitch was on a talk show and was complaining about Stewart making such a big deal about this, like it was inevitable Mitch would approve the money. Mitch went on Stewart was just doing this for attention to raise his profile to run for office, which, what the hell Mitch.

    Yeah sorry not sorry, Mitch. That people suspect that you might not do the right thing? Yeah, that's because there's fucking precedent for that.

    That it is capped, and isn't automatically just folded into the budget, and instead needs to keep getting renewed, is all the evidence I need that once they feel they can justify it, or that they can at least hide it from view, they'll drop it.

    That Jon Stewart won't let them, is just awesome of him. This isn't the first time he's had to do this. He won't forget, and he's making sure Congress aren't allowed to.

    SleepVyolynceSyphonBlueForarjoshofalltradesMild ConfusionMan in the MistsShadowenRickRudeFencingsaxAthenorN1tSt4lkerRchanenAbsoluteZerotynicGnome-InterruptusMatevJaysonFournever die
Sign In or Register to comment.