Status
Not open for further replies.
Tandem46

Tandem46

Well Known Member
I must preface by saying this is Doug's site and he can edit what ever he wants whenever he wants.

Having said that, I'm totally against the idea of editing other posts in general. Obviously you have to have standards and if this was my site I wouldn't allow vulger, pornography, or photos of a gruesome nature to be posted here. However, the photos of the TBM/RV accident that were edited out do not fit any of these categories. I saw those photos and they were very benign and taken at such a distance that you could not make out anything other than the fact that it indeed was an RV-6. How is that different from the newspaper articles that often get posted here concerning aircraft crashes. They usually have photos and we don't edit those out. Just last week we had links to articles of both the fatal F-86 crash(http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=9514&highlight=f-86+crash) and the fatal Spectrum 33 crash with fairly detailed photos posted on this site. Both of these aircraft were demolished and their pilots killed, but those photos didn't bother anyone or cause anyone to feel they were disrespectful to the surviving families. How about posting N numbers of crashed aircraft where forum members can then look up the victims address via the FAA. Is this not disrespectful to the families of the victims? And then the second guessing that we all do as pilots immediately following an accident such as the Europa accident at Oshkkosh last week. What if we offended the son, brother or whomever of the deceased by speculating about his ability to fly or the reason for the crash so soon after his accident.

The bottom line is unless a post or photo crosses a set and very distinct line, I don't think we should be editing them. I can see absolutely no reason why those TBM/RV photos were edited out. May as well just edit out any reference to the accident altogether.

Respectfully,
 
Well said. There is no call for censorship. If you don't want to read the material, then don't read it. I'm old enough to make that decision all by my onesy.
 
censorship?

I agree 100% that this is doug's site and that this site is a credit to the RV
community. Editing for content is not a big deal to me "on this site". If I want
unabashed journalism I'll read avweb or others.
 
Doug's Forum

I think if you read the VAF rules and mission statement, you'll see this is already laid out. Doug can and will do as he sees fit to suit his vision. I support bringing accident reports to the members here so that something might be learned and retained to prevent one of us in the future from making the same mistake but the photos of fatal accidents... well those are something I wouldn't really want to see if they were my friends or family members.
 
Posting Rules

I agree that this is Doug?s site. If Doug believes a post is inappropriate for his site. Then he should exercise his authority to remove the offensive post from his forum.
 
I just went through this with another aviation forum. The censorship and control got so out of hand that most of the active membership left and started another forum where they could speak freely. Free speech isn't for the faint of heart or thin skinned, but it sure is liberating to be able to debate. It brings people together in profound ways. People I butted heads with there have become my best friends that I look forward to seeing. I camped with many of them at OSH, and it was the most memorable aviation event for me yet.

While I agree that posting accident pictures like that may be painful to some, they may never see them here. I would also argue that those who see them here will never forget them and will be safer with someone else's hard learned lesson burned into their memory. They can always choose not to view them.

Dave
 
Unmoderated

The home page states the forum is unmoderated. That's False.

[ed. What I mean by 'unmoderated' here is that messages are not placed in a que that has to be approved before being sent out to the forum. dr]

​
The pictures Doug elected to remove are surely available somewhere on the internet as well as news websites and or newspapers.

The site also states kid friendly... well my kid reads the newspaper and other websites as well as myself. I don't know what he thinks he can hide? The pictures as I saw them were an accident scene, just as you would see in the newspaper. Nothing gross or out of line at all...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Johnson said:
While I agree that posting accident pictures like that may be painful to some, they may never see them here. I would also argue that those who see them here will never forget them and will be safer with someone else's hard learned lesson burned into their memory. They can always choose not to view them.

Dave
Click to expand...

I can see this point of view as well. An image of tragedies like this are retained better by most people. If that image makes a pilot think in a similar, future situation to avoid an accident, it is probably worth it.
 
LifeofReiley said:
The home page states the forum is unmoderated. That's False.
Click to expand...
I think what you are objecting to is the "censorship" of the pictures and not the moderation of the forum. Somewhere in our "we must have total freedom to do as we please" mentality we have this misconception that censorship is a bad thing. All of us censor our lives multiple times a day. If you have kids you censor what they see and hear daily. I think if we did more of it in a public forum such as this we would live in a much better world. Thanks again Doug, I do not need to rubber neck at the car accident on the side of the road.
 
Doug's reply re: the editing of posts...please take a moment to read.

This would be a good opportunity to ask that all read 'the rules' for using the VAF Forums: http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm

Thanks for your input, Tobin (and others). I completely respect your position, but having said that...this is my site, my rules for use are in print for all to see http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm, and my personal vision of keeping it 'family friendly' includes not showing pictures of accident scenes where people died. There are several excellent forums and email lists on the web that market the no-restrictions angle as a selling point, however my business plan is one that shares the belief that there is a demand for one that doesn't 'let it all hang out there' so to speak.

My vision is one that targets the 85% hump in the bell curve - the majority of which would not like to see pictures of their deceased loved ones on the web for eternity (even from a distance). Regardless of the fact that those RV crash pictures were from a distance, they are of a scene where someone's life came to a violent, horrific end.

Thanks for bringing the F-86 crash picture to my attention. I removed it.

Anyone who hasn't read the rules for using this site, they can be found at http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm.

I'll ignore item #8 on the rules page for a moment (Posts criticizing moderating decisions or forum policies will be deleted), as I think people should see what I have to say on the subject. I don't want there to be any ambiguity on where I stand on this issue.

The rule 'if one of the moderators doesn't like it, it's toast' covers a lot of ground. Also, the line in the rules stating "What about items 6 through 11? This is the "gray zone" - the area where different people have different levels of tolerance" carries weight in this circumstance. Different people have different ideas of 'family friendly'. This is one of those gray areas. I judged the situation as I saw it and made the decision to yank those crash pictures. I would do it again - ESPECIALLY if it was someone I knew.

Please, if you haven't read the rules for using the VAF Forums...do. I address the 'free speech' issue also in there. Nutshell, this is NOT a place where you can say anything you want. Maybe that statement will drive some people away, but it's my believe that it will bring more in to participate in the long run. There is enough gore in the world - I'm choosing to not add to it.

Paul Rosales told me years ago that you could stand on a street corner handing out $100 bills and someone would eventually call you a jerk (or something like that) <g>.

The rules: http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm

Best,
Doug
 
Last edited:
Maybe that statement will drive some people away
Click to expand...
Indeed it will. Doug, I am very concerned by your stance on this. It's your place and your business, but I should be free to challenge you on your ethics. Part of what made the original BBS concept wonderful, is that no one person had control.

It is critical for forum owners to remember that it is the members that make it what it is. We give our considerable time and expertise in exchange for the knowledge and comraderie of other knowledgeable people. Please believe me when I say that censorship on a public forum is a slippery slope indeed.

Respectfully,
Dave
 
Last edited:
You just did (challenge my ethics) :). I respect your viewpoint, David, but it's my business and I'll run it how I think it should be run. I couldn't agree more with your 'cencorship is a slippery slope' statement, which is why I've laid out my rules very clearly.

If you are a person that is passionate about being able to say whatever is on your mind in a forum, and I suspect you are, let me suggest rec.aviation.homebuilt or Matronics.com or Rivetbangers.com. All very popular sites.

Kindest,
Doug

David Johnson said:
...It's your place and your business, but I should be free to challenge you on your ethics.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MSG to Doug

Doug,
Thanks for your response. I likewise totally respect your point of view and the fact that it is indeed your site. I simply disagreed but in the end I love this site and come here every day. I appreciate the hard work you put into it on a daily basis and want you to know that.

Thanks again,
 
Thank you Tobin.

Agreeing to disagree isn't a bad thing, it keeps the conversation lively <g>.

Best always,
Doug

tobinbasford said:
Doug,
Thanks for your response. I likewise totally respect your point of view and the fact that it is indeed your site. I simply disagreed but in the end I love this site and come here every day. I appreciate the hard work you put into it on a daily basis and want you to know that.

Thanks again,
Click to expand...
 
Careful......

Doug,

The Egg Yahoo site has been censored to the point of uselessness. Please don't do that here too!
 
You can't have it both ways Doug

Well....I must jump in here.....you can't have it both ways Doug. You say that the site is 'family and kid friendly'.....yet, JUST THIS MORNING you posted the 'Darth Vader' thing on your front page. I read the lead up to it while my 11 year old daughter was beside me and 'thought' it would be 'funny' as you suggested......WRONG....i immediately hit the 'X' in the corner of the screen as all the vulgar profane language started coming across the airwaves. Not only was it not fit for my daughter....I didn't want to hear that kind of language either.

I'm not posting the link here as I personally don't approve of it.

That said.....I guess that 'you' have a different definition of 'family and kid friendly' than I do.

Respectfully, I enjoy the site and appreciate your efforts.....but.....please make up your mind.

Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
 
I wouldn't worry too much, John. I haven't looked at the logs, but I'd be suprised if I've deleted more than ten posts in the 56,000+ in here that weren't spam.

99.99% of the time, the 'edit' is correcting an image link or similar.

Best,
Doug


Yukon said:
Doug,

The Egg Yahoo site has been censored to the point of uselessness. Please don't do that here too!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sense of Proportion...

Yukon said:
Doug,

The Egg Yahoo site has been censored to the point of uselessness. Please don't do that here too!
Click to expand...

I think we all need to keep in mind that this site has been running for quite awhile now, and there are literally thousands of threads. the number of times that those threads (or posts) have been edited/removed/"censored" by moderators is statistically in the noise. I also don't see a trend toward more censorship - this is a blip,not a trend. Occasionally, Doug makes a judgment call that folks don't like. That's life.

99.999% of the time, all rolls on....

Paul
 
I don't remember there being any hard language in that, Rick, but I'll delete it nonetheless. My 11 yr old daughter thought it was hilarious. My apologies...

b,
d

rv6rick said:
Well....I must jump in here.....you can't have it both ways Doug. You say that the site is 'family and kid friendly'.....yet, JUST THIS MORNING you posted the 'Darth Vader' thing on your front page. I read the lead up to it while my 11 year old daughter was beside me and 'thought' it would be 'funny' as you suggested......WRONG....i immediately hit the 'X' in the corner of the screen as all the vulgar profane language started coming across the airwaves. Not only was it not fit for my daughter....I didn't want to hear that kind of language either.

I'm not posting the link here as I personally don't approve of it.

That said.....I guess that 'you' have a different definition of 'family and kid friendly' than I do.

Respectfully, I enjoy the site and appreciate your efforts.....but.....please make up your mind.

Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
Click to expand...
 
no slippery slope

Actually, I like the forum as it is. I appreciate it when ad hominem posts are removed and the offending posters corrected.
Censoring content on this forum is not an attack on constitutionally guaranteed free speech any more than washing your kids' mouths out with soap for inappropriate speech would be. I don't believe there is any 'slippery slope' here.
Anyone wanting to create and run an uncensored site is able to do so but I would venture a guess that it would drive more people away due to the petty bickering amongst the trolls than it would attract.

Keep up the good work, Doug!
 
Blip???

I don't know about blips, Paul. You just censored one of my posts last week because I objected strenuously to Dan Checkoway's promotion of leaning at initial climb power. No chance for discussion, no rebuttle, but Dan's post lives on for all the nubies to absorb and emulate.
 
Censoring content on this forum is not an attack on constitutionally guaranteed free speech any more than washing your kids' mouths out with soap for inappropriate speech would be.
Click to expand...
Mike- if you attempt to wash MY mouth out with soap, you better be packing! :)

When I turned 18 I no longer needed "moderating".

Dave
 
DeltaRomeo said:
You just did (challenge my ethics) :).
Click to expand...
Yup. And you handled it well. Still didn't change anything, but I'll wear you down eventually :D

DeltaRomeo said:
I respect your viewpoint, David, but it's my business and I'll run it how I think it should be run. I couldn't agree more with your 'cencorship is a slippery slope' statement, which is why I've laid out my rules very clearly.
Click to expand...
Well, not much point in debating then.

DeltaRomeo said:
If you are a person that is passionate about being able to say whatever is on your mind in a forum, and I suspect you are, let me suggest Matronics.com and/or Rivetbangers.com. Both very popular sites.
Click to expand...
OK, I can take a hint. Adios!

Cheers,
Dave
 
Slippery Slope?

Here's a slippery slope for ya: Doug puts the pics back in, along with every other crash scene, murder scene, terrorist beheading video, etc. Maybe toss in a couple of old Redd Foxx bits for the kiddies. Is that what we want? This site is an awesome resource for builders and sometimes quite entertaining too for it's lively debates. If I want to see photos of wreckage with bodies inside I can go to plenty of other sites. I, for one, didn't need the photos to remind me that airplane props can be dangerous. While the photos were long shots, I think human nature will cause those seeing them to attempt to zoom in to see what they can. This does nothing to inform and can only cause pain to the victim's loved ones.

It seems like many of the "free speech" advocates fail to recognize that this is a business. Balancing the desires of readers like me with those of advertisers is not easy and Doug does a fine job.
 
Last edited:
"Doug puts the pics back in, along with every other crash scene, murder scene, terrorist beheading video, etc. Maybe toss in a couple of old Redd Foxx bits for the kiddies. Is that what we want?"

Geez Steve,
No one said anything about going to extremes.
 
Both Ways?

rv6rick said:
Well....I must jump in here.....you can't have it both ways Doug. You say that the site is 'family and kid friendly'.....yet, JUST THIS MORNING you posted the 'Darth Vader' thing on your front page. I read the lead up to it while my 11 year old daughter was beside me and 'thought' it would be 'funny' as you suggested......WRONG....i immediately hit the 'X' in the corner of the screen as all the vulgar profane language started coming across the airwaves. Not only was it not fit for my daughter....I didn't want to hear that kind of language either.

I'm not posting the link here as I personally don't approve of it.

That said.....I guess that 'you' have a different definition of 'family and kid friendly' than I do.

Respectfully, I enjoy the site and appreciate your efforts.....but.....please make up your mind.

Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
Click to expand...

Kind of makes you think about the unmoderated part. There are even spell checkers (moderators) here on the forum? I guess we need that. I would rather my kid see the pictures of two airplanes sitting front to back than the above...
 
Last edited:
Doug's Sandbox!

It is Doug's sandbox. Obey and play or leave. While he and I do not agree on the "family stuff", I have no beef with anyone setting rules in their own box and enforcing their interpretation of the rules. As far as censorship goes, it is in the eye of the beholder, a perception, and everyone perceives this type of control differently. Deal with it or build your own sandbox.

On this site, I've been edited, vilified, burnt on purchases and chastized. For that reason, I rarely post anymore. But, I have also given parts to friends I've yet to meet in person, shared mistakes, learned valuable lessons, exchanged ideas, filled up a hard drive with photos and experienced the sin of envy on a regular basis. I too visit several times a day.

In my eyes, this site is not a community. A community is more of a democratic endeavour. While I have nothing but respect for the moderators, a community type board would have the membership(those that pay), elect the moderators. That said, this is one of several valuable internet tools, a reference source if you will, necessary for the construction and maintenance of a RV. We should all appreciate the efforts of the many individuals that find the extra time to construct and maintain their websites for all to view.

One word of warning. While in the sandbox watch out for cats!

FWIW
 
Non-Issue

This is such a non-issue. The censorship / free speech arguement would be valid if Doug were the Emperor of Texas and used his regal power to ban a photo or text from every publication in the Republic.
We agreed to the terms of this private web-site when we signed up. Doug is the editor and publisher and, based on our agreement when we signed up as members, has the right to edit the content based solely on his choice, discretion, opinion, whim, mood, fancy, or even his own judgement. VAF is not a monopoly. There are other websites with forums, or you can even start your own if you disagree with their terms.
I wear my VAF hat proudly. Thanks, Doug for helping to make building an RV easier and more fun.
 
Page Views

Jim,

Strickly speaking, you're right. But from a practical viewpoint, those that care about this issue are attempting to influence the way that Doug exercises his "judgement". Also, those giant "page view" numbers are in no small part due to this forum and it's contributors. There are just so many "Stickeys" I can read in a week before I loose interest. I'm sure Doug knows this.
 
Perspective, please

Let's remember what the Constituion actually says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

That's all it says. Doug is not Congress. Doug, in his business, can limit free speech all he wants. He can kick me out if he doesn't like what I say or how I say it.

If someone comes into my house and says things I find offensive, I can ask them to stop, or ask them to leave. They have no right to offend me in my house. I have no right to offend Doug in his forum. Obviously, if he were too trigger-happy in exercising his prerogative, the forum would wither and die.

I'm quite confident that he and the other moderators will be reasonable. Unreasonable people don't build airplanes :)

I suspect our overseas brethren are chuckling as they read this..."Bloody Yanks yapping about their rights again!"

As a practical matter, I think the quality of this forum is waaay higher than the Matronic RV-List...much higher signal/noise ratio. Strong moderators are a good thing. :)
 
I always find it amusing when people start quoting the "right" to free speech when trying to apply it to a private, non-public, environment. It just isn't applicable here, this isn't a public forum.

This site is in no way, shape or form, a community or club where the "members" can decide how it is run. It is Doug's business and he can run it as he sees fit and we can accept that or not participate, and while I didn't see anything offensive about the accident photos, I accept Doug's decision to remove them. Perhaps if Doug changed the references to "member" on the site to "customer", people would understand this better. Like any good businessman, Doug will adjust his policies to maximize revenues and if enough customers leave because of his rules, he will probably change them, but I doubt that few, if any, are really worried about a few deleted posts.

I think that the few posts that Doug removes are probably unimportant in the grand scheme of things and I can live with this, as I think the site provides enough high value content that I will continue to participate in it even with, if not because of, Doug's rules.
 
Lost me

jsherblon said:
Now I'm confused -



So is the problem that Doug's judgement isn't aligned with those who care about this issue, or that the terms of agreement for membership aren't practical?
Click to expand...


You lost me buddy, try again!
 
Four pages already about some deleted photos, geez.

Thank god Doug didn't delete something about primer....
 
Paul's ( ptrotter) Reply

ptrotter said:
I always find it amusing when people start quoting the "right" to free speech when trying to apply it to a private, non-public, environment. It just isn't applicable here, this isn't a public forum.

This site is in no way, shape or form, a community or club where the "members" can decide how it is run. It is Doug's business and he can run it as he sees fit and we can accept that or not participate, and while I didn't see anything offensive about the accident photos, I accept Doug's decision to remove them. Perhaps if Doug changed the references to "member" on the site to "customer", people would understand this better. Like any good businessman, Doug will adjust his policies to maximize revenues and if enough customers leave because of his rules, he will probably change them, but I doubt that few, if any, are really worried about a few deleted posts.

I think that the few posts that Doug removes are probably unimportant in the grand scheme of things and I can live with this, as I think the site provides enough high value content that I will continue to participate in it even with, if not because of, Doug's rules.
Click to expand...
The most intelligent statement on this whole ridiculous thread. Everyone please read.
NYTOM
 
Hey NYTOM,

One of Doug's other rules is that all contributors post an electronic signature, consisting of your first and last name, state of your project, and city and state. You are one of many who hasn't responded to this "rule". What up???
 
John, just to clarify.... This isn't an in-stone rule (the auto-sig). It's voluntary, but I have asked a few of the users with a history of being very opinionated, opinionated to the point of ruffling a few feathers, to create auto-signatures for their accounts.

Best,
Doug
 
This site is in no way, shape or form, a community or club where the "members" can decide how it is run. It is Doug's business and he can run it as he sees fit and we can accept that or not participate, and while I didn't see anything offensive about the accident photos, I accept Doug's decision to remove them.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing that it's his right to manage the forum as he pleases...least of all me. It was my intention to suggest that his choice in what to delete in this case was unreasonable, and then that sparked all of the other free speech debate. So let's get past the chest pounding about what Doug can and can't do. That's not in debate.

Deleting the accident pictures was one of the more ridiculous breaches of good sense I've ever seen in an online community. Porn? Delete it, no question. We're not talking absolutes here, we're talking reason. Pretending an accident didn't happen and depriving people of the understanding they would get in seeing the pictures is not reasonable. We're mortal, folks. The sooner some pilots understand this, the safer they will be.

I'm through beating this horse, and I apologize if my comments bother some of you.

Doug- I am grateful for your forums and certainly mean no disrespect.

Dave
 
Auto Sig

Doug, isn't that funny......I distinctly remember a header on the forum page reminding everyone to post an auto-signature.....which I immediately complied with.
 
tobinbasford said:
Just last week we had links to articles of both the fatal F-86 crash(http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=9514&highlight=f-86+crash) and the fatal Spectrum 33 crash with fairly detailed photos posted on this site. Both of these aircraft were demolished and their pilots killed, but those photos didn't bother anyone or cause anyone to feel they were disrespectful to the surviving families.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic, but has anyone seen the NTSB report on the Spectrum 33.

After 45+ hours of flight, some re-working took place in the area of the assembly that connected the aileron linkages. The linkages were mis-rigged when replaced, which gave reversed aileron control. The aircraft banked nearly 90 degrees after takeoff, which caught the wing tip and cartwheeled.

I know this type of mistake has occured with numerous aircraft, but it always surprises me that no one seems to notice the reversed control surface movements.

L.Adamson
 
David Johnson said:
Deleting the accident pictures was one of the more ridiculous breaches of good sense I've ever seen in an online community. Porn? Delete it, no question. We're not talking absolutes here, we're talking reason.
Click to expand...

Guess that would depend on your definition of what "porn" is huh? Just like Doug's definition of what is objectionable. He didn't like it, so he deleted it. It's good to be the King!

David Johnson said:
Pretending an accident didn't happen and depriving people of the understanding they would get in seeing the pictures is not reasonable. We're mortal, folks. The sooner some pilots understand this, the safer they will be.
Click to expand...

Ah, c'mon. We all know "Real Pilots" never have accidents! This site isn't about aircraft accidents, it's about building RV's (and a few other aircraft). If you want to see and discuss other things, there are other sites out there for that.

David Johnson said:
Doug- I am grateful for your forums and certainly mean no disrespect.
Click to expand...

You must mean no disrespect toward Doug because I have seen disrespect in at least one of your recent post. One of the reasons I couldn't be a moderator here, I would have certainly edited at least one of your post.

Just for the record David, how old are you? I'm 43 and would guess based on reading your post you to be 18-23 range. Just wondering because I have found a few to say things like "I've rebuilt a few of those in my day" and "In all of the aircraft I've worked on" or "I've ever seen in an online community" only to find out they're just pups. Just wondering, how far off target am I?

There is no "right" to speak freely, free speech is a privilege that some take for granted. Most of us live in a free society and even some of us live in the United States where we abuse this privilege from time to time. Lord knows the teenagers that sometimes walk and drive in front of my house think they can speak freely using language that would make a sailor blush. I for one am thankful Doug has his values and isn't afraid to voice those values.

I also realise that this post is on the edge of the rules as well, we'll see if it gets edited.

Thanks for a great resource and site Doug!
 
David Johnson said:
When I turned 18 I no longer needed "moderating".
Click to expand...
Wow! If this is true then perhaps we can now get rid of all of those pesky laws we all have to abide by as adults! Everything in moderation takes some kind of moderator. Self moderation only works with a disciplined mind. When multiple minds come together there will enivitably be some without discipline. Left to our own devices how much would go unmoderated?
 
DeltaRomeo said:
I respect your viewpoint, David, but it's my business and I'll run it how I think it should be run.
Click to expand...


True - until the state or local government orders this a 'non-smoking' forum. ;)
 
Just for the record David, how old are you? I'm 43 and would guess based on reading your post you to be 18-23 range.
Click to expand...
I understand that open debate is painful to some when the point of view doesn't match with theirs. Unfortunately, the typewritten word seldom allows for the inflection necessary to convey true intent, and I've noticed that sometimes folks assume the worst. Too bad.

There is no "right" to speak freely, free speech is a privilege that some take for granted.
Click to expand...
You've been misinformed.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not asking to be granted a first amendment right in Doug's house, though I would grant it to people in my home. Again, all I was asking him to do is consider a different point of view on the posting of the photos that were deleted. My hope is that in the future he will be a bit more open. All I can do is ask, and provide justification for my point of view.

I'm 35, if it matters.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.