"Tommy" is a DJ at FM 94/9 in San Diego. He received an irate e-mail from a listener after he made a less-than-flattering comment about Ann Coulter on the air.
I know...it's hard to imagine saying something unflattering about sweet, loveable Annie, but...
Here's his reply. It's a bit long, but very well written and absolutely worth the read.
(Posted with the permission of the author.)
Dear Jxxxxx,
How are you?
I'm only too happy to respond to your note, though the only positive
thing I can say is you took time out of your day to write it. I find
it regrettable you seem to feel anyone who doesn't subscribe to your
rigid set of beliefs as to how our nation conducts itself internally
and externally is some kind of an enemy of the state, but at least I
now understand why you leapt to Ms. Coulter's defense when I spent six
seconds on her. I don't know you and the better angles of my nature
tell me it's unfair to characterize, but I'm guessing you simply like
having your opinions reinforced, and don't like it when those rigid,
learned beliefs of yours are challenged or even pondered over, but
there are more than enough bedwetting outlets to be given a fear-laden
"it'll all be all right" pat on the head in this regrettable media age
we're in.
Instead of trying to find common ground with me, you've gone off on
albeit well-written tangents on a number of assumptions you've made
about me personally because of my distaste for Ann Coulter, and you've
clearly allowed others to define the "playing field" by which you
judge and make assumptions of people. That, or you're just genuinely
unpleasant. Your reaction is indicative and mirrors the kind of junk
being stuffed down worried Americans' throats by both an opportunistic
and intellectually lazy media.
>> you have an audience of unsuspecting listeners simply tuning
>> in to hear some good music (many of them young adults with
>> formative minds)
Yeah, we don't want any young people to think for themselves, do we?
If we have listeners with formative minds tuning in to FM 94/9 I'm
guessing they're doing so in part because they're already doing a bit
of thinking for themselves and they appreciate our independent stance.
They might also appreciate our sense of humor and willingness to
debunk ridiculous notions and ridiculous people in the news (including
Republicans).
Let me put it to you this way since you used the term "unsuspecting."
When I'm in the car with my niece and we want to get a weather
forecast or a traffic report, we go to the AM band and punch up a
so-called news station. We know weather and traffic typically come at
the top or bottom of the hour or at certain intervals in between. Is
it a reasonable expectation to hear Rush Limbaugh describe former
President Jimmy Carter as a "charitable charlatan" or hear Michael
Savage tell so-called 'liberals' in his listening audience he isn't a
liberal because he doesn't "take it in the ass like you" when tuning
into a 'news' station? Is this appropriate use of the public
airwaves? Is this appropriate content for my unsuspecting niece who
is only looking for a weather forecast or sports score or traffic
report with her uncle? Is this even appropriate discourse at all? Am
I specifically tuning in for this kind of content? No, we're tuning
in for news and information, and instead we get a tsunami of hate and
vitriol with a lingering negative taste. We didn't come to a news
station for this, yet news stations broadcast this kind of content on
a regular, daily basis. You wonder why there's another rash of
shootings on L.A. freeways? I blame the "more stimulating,"
deliberately button-pushing, seeing-red infuriating "talk" of 640 KFI.
What do you think this kind of programming does to people over the
long haul? Coupled with the stress and aggravation of modern living,
driving, traffic, etc.? I'm making an assumption here, but I'll bet
the first thing you do when you get home is turn on cable TV news and
allow your opinions to be reinforced by one-sided, loud mouth
commentators. Do you ever read the paper? Forget the New York Times,
try the Christian Science Monitor for starters. Heck, I'll buy you a
subscription.
>> and you are able spew your unsubstantiated views at your own
>> selfish whim without any countering position.
You can thank President Reagan for that, when he repealed the
long-standing broadcasting Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which
implemented the rule mandating all political and editorial content had
to be balanced on public airwaves (because the airwaves, after all, DO
NOT belong to companies and corporations, they belong to YOU) in the
initial Communications Bill of 1934. Since 1987 broadcasting has been
digressing down a very slippery slope of increasing partisanship, and
you've got what we have now: programming designed for sets of beliefs,
programming marketed according to those demographics, and programming
which doesn't challenge beliefs nor balance them in the name of
commercial goals.
I think what you're really complaining about is you're coming across a
media entity which doesn't play by the same rules as the media you're
used to or prefer to surround yourself with, and you're not used to
hearing something counter to your beliefs. Tough ~ it's a two-way
street, Ms. Wilson. You are used to hearing what you want by virtue
of your media selections. Mine apparently don't fit with yours, so
does that mean I can't express them, even though conservative AM talk
haters can spew what they do? And is what I'm suggesting so
mean-spirited anyway? So cruel? So histrionically serious? Come on
board and hug a tree.
>> I suppose you think Michael Moore is a sane and sensible
>> cheerleader for America, with an agenda of "love and concern"
>> for us all?
Right, right...I dislike Ann Coulter, therefore I must be in the arms
of Michael Moore. Ms. Wilson, people's tastes, concerns, perceptions
and politics are a lot more complicated and all over the map than
simple left/right. This prevailing facet alone, constantly being
reinforced by a media that benefits from such cultural divisions, is
derailing good discourse all over this country and in the political
arena, and both sides have a lot to answer for. I did, however, find
Bowling for Columbine an outstanding dissection of Americana and
firearms. We could probably have a more valuable conversation on this
topic instead of Ms. Coulter and really share some ideas that haven't
been belabored or beaten to death, but I'm guessing you haven't seen
the film yet.
>> You could also use your entire Ann Coulter description and
>> substitute Michael Moore's name in her place and it would
>> still make sense, depending on your views of course.
I'd disagree in that Mr. Moore doesn't preach a gospel of hate or
willful ignorance or intolerance, he merely questions what those in
power want you to believe. We need people like that in this country,
whether you like them or not. After all it's not the questions that
get people in trouble, it's the answers. I haven't seen Fahrenheit
9/11, but do you not like it when people ask questions? Would you
prefer blind obedience? I can think of some countries in the world
that would accommodate you nicely in that regard.
>> At least she defends our country when all you liberals can
>> do is make it the enemy.
"All you liberals?" How do you know I'm a liberal? What is
"liberal?" What do you see yourself as?
How does Ms. Coulter defend our country? Through soundbites and
speeches and endless rhetoric? I'm guessing she hasn't visited the
amputee ward at Walter Reed Army Hospital lately, yet remains a vocal
proponent for violence against other nations and cultures we don't
agree with or who aren't working for us this week.
Can you tell me how liberals make our country "the enemy?" Really,
since you've crossed this bridge of tired far-right rhetoric...what in
the world are you talking about? I know where you get this stuff
from, so please, I encourage you to start thinking for yourself
instead of regurgitating nonsense from AM radio and cable TV news.
Read a newspaper. I'll buy you a subscription.
>> I suppose you, like Michael Moore and the other Hollywood Elitists,
>> think we deserved the attack of 9/11 due to our foreign policies etc.
The nice thing about freedom of speech is it allows people like you to
hang yourself with your own words.
What a terrible, terrible thing to say. "Deserved?" How dare you
suggest such a thing? Only right-wing media could so blindly embolden
someone in this manner. Shame on you, you should be more careful
about writing so off-the-cuff.
Please tell me when did Michael Moore say "we," the United States
"deserved the attack of 9/11?"
"Hollywood Elite?" How about the Power Elite? Or the Corporate
Elite? Or the Secrecy Elite? Hey, I don't like the empty-headed
Hollywood so-called "elite" either, but don't blind yourself to more
damaging kinds of elitists that are out there. Stop regurgitating and
think for yourself. Hollywood is a mirror that reflects our culture,
not the other way around. If people didn't partake in the junk
Hollywood often delivers to the Enormoplex, Hollywood would quit
making it. Supply and demand. Does that make it right? That's up
for us to decide individually. If you don't like Hollywood ~ great ~
don't indulge in their products, but you'll have to excuse me if this
is a non-issue I don't care about.
>> There is no excuse for us to be attacked over and over again by
>> Muslim extremists, or anyone else for that matter, while we sit
>> back and do nothing.
Are we doing "nothing?" Last I saw we're fighting a couple of wars
and expending an extraordinary amount of effort, money, and lives.
>> It's an "us or them" situation right now, so what would you suggest
>> we do, reason with these people who don't even respect their own
>> lives and surely don't give a R/A about yours or mine?
Who are the Muslim extremists? Al-Qaeda? Hezbollah? Ever heard of
Black September? Al-Fattah? Have I suggested we fight less than an
emboldened war against those who would seek to attack us? Feel free
to quote me if I have.
You should check out Paul Fussell's fine 1989 book Wartime. He's a
World War II vet and a former P.O.W., having been captured by the
Germans around the time of the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944 or
early 1945, and has some good thoughts on the contagiousness of
destructive groupthink.
>> People who live in a situation like that are eventually going to kill
>> because they have nothing to live for, violence and misery is all
>> they've ever known.
That is correct.
>> Don't blame our country for that, blame their country for instilling
>> the hate in their people to save their own government. Blame them
>> for attacking us, not America.
Who is blaming America? Where is this coming from?
The 9/11 attackers came from which nations? Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt,
and mostly, Saudi Arabia. If these countries instilled such hate for
the United States into their citizenry that they attacked us, please
explain to me why we haven't invaded these nations. Osama bin Laden
is a Saudi national. Why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia? His
deputy and the man who planned the 9/11 operation, whom we killed, was
an Egyptian doctor. Why have we not invaded Egypt? Another planner
of the 9/11 attacks, who is now in our custody, is a Pakistani.
Please, by virtue of your logic, tell me why we have not attacked
Pakistan?
Ms. Wilson...we support and give bucketloads of money to Kuwait,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for varying reasons, because we need
their help militarily and politically (Pakistan), because we covet
their resources (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), because we covet their
economic muscle by virtue of their resources (Kuwait) and because a
stable Middle East is in everyone's best interest. Yet these nations
are led by similarly thuggish, brutal and extreme regimes that deny
their citizens any say in their government, enforce a hardened,
centuries-oil class system, and generally do a poor job of
representing their people. When we are seen doing business with those
nations' clearly self-serving, despotic governments and "propping them
up," the people inside those countries already growing hopeless and
hungry don't need a big leap of the imagination to conclude the
arsenal of democracy and the country that gave the world amazing
documents like the egoless Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence may also be behaving in a self-serving manner in which
they put the principles of their country aside for short-term
economic, political or commercial interests, and they see it as coming
at the expense of their collective future.
That attitude excuses nothing, but that's how many of these folks
feel, and it's been known to breed revolution in the past (like the
taxation-without-representation American revolution) and a few
particularly twisted or easily molded people of those affected
millions may actually come in contact with terrorist organizations and
act on their behalf. It's been happening for centuries. Ask the
British. Ask the Turks. Ask around.
Though this doesn't excuse anything it may give us a starting point to
move ahead and use our political, diplomatic and economic influence as
the arsenal of democracy to pressure these oppressive, frankly
un-American governments in the countries I've listed above to
undertake democratic reforms. You know, the countries whose citizens
attacked us, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and Pakistan.
A glimmer of hope for this second administration is Secretary Rice is
making some baby step moves in the case of democratic reform with two
countries that really need it, Egypt and Saudi Arabia...but we've got
a long way to go, and, well, Secretary Rice is also a liar and
possibly incompetent.
>> ...insinuating the president lied to us about WMD's while laughing
>> all the way to the bank.
It's more than an insinuation. In the meantime, turn off the TV and
read a newspaper like the Christian Science Monitor and get the full
story instead of sound-bite written denials and buck-passing.
>> Thank God, the liberal press as hard as they tried, even to their own
>> embarrassment, were unsuccessful in ousting Bush in this last election.
What liberal press? I'd agree with lazy and craven, but liberal?
Where do you get that?
>> America didn't become the great country it is today by worrying about
>> what the other countries (by the way, most of them liberated courtesy
>> of the U.S.A.) thought about us.
More "straw men" arguments you're regurgitating because you've heard
them over and over. Worrying about what other countries think about
us and making an effort to work with other nations are two different
things. The right does have something of an inferiority complex
though, so when other nations question neo-conservative motives, they
don't how to react other than running around saying everyone hates
them. Look...cooperation and diplomacy does not mean striding into a
room and dictating terms to your friends. You know who said that?
President Bush. Well, eh, the other President Bush (in his memoirs).
>> In my opinion, the political correctness movement in this country
>> has gone far enough, it's time for survival correctness.
I agree. Political correctness has grown into a tiring attempt by the
professionally sensitive to substitute an enforced sensitivity for
reality, and it's lengths have gone utterly over the top, especially
in academia. People need to toughen up ~ especially the far right ~
which needs to quit crying like a baby every time one of their
denizens or one-sided heroes are criticized for the very freedom of
speech they are Constitutionally permitted to exercise.
"Survival correctness" sounds like a lunatic ideal of Y2K
fear-mongers, but if you want I'd be happy to invite you along for a
group survival techniques getaway lecture/exercise in the Laguna
Mountains or Borrego for a weekend.
>> In-as-much as I'd love to make a big deal about you forcing your
>> opinion on me by crying for your resignation because you offended
>> me by offending my country ....wha, wha! How's that for political
>> correctness?
Wha...? Ms. Wilson, kindly explain to me how I offended your country.
I offended your country because I offended Ann Coulter? Is that the
connection?
- - excuse me - -
I had to stop laughing.
I'll take the position I offended Ann Coulter because she offended our
country on this one (look at you, "my country," how ownership society
of you). We are all citizens of this nation, no one is some kind of
individual deity over all of us (except for maybe Elvis, or David
Koresh), this country and the duties inherent in its freedom belong to
all of us, or rather, "this land was made for you and me." Not just
you, unless you live in a siege-mentality gated community or
something. What have you done to make your community a better place
today? Cheat on your taxes?
>> By the way If she were sitting with the Ted Kennedy clan while
>> partying in the Hamptons, would that make it O.K. for you then?
Have you read the Time article yet? Have you seen who some of her
friends are? Is that how you express love for country? By partying
with the Power Elite?
>> Speaking of President Kennedy's "moral compass" I think he did
>> demand and get the most from his neighbors (tee hee, I couldn't resist
>> that). He was a great man and by today's standards he would have
>> probably been too far right for his own party.
Yeah, that's right, claim another icon who can no longer speak for
himself as your own. More shame on you, but how can the shameless be
shamed? While I'm at it, I'll resist the Lincoln comparison, not to
mention Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.
>> Maybe you should take his advise and "ask not what can your
>> country do for you, ask what you can do for your country?"
Precisely!!! Now you have guiding words in front of you!!! Give your
time to an orphanage, "help blind kids," help victims in a burn ward,
volunteer at the V.A. In fact, you'd have to volunteer for the V.A.
since they're not hiring. Yeah, the Veterans' Administration budget
and soldiers' benefits were slashed...again. What a way to honor
people who served and fought for our country, eh? Our military
deserves better...but I didn't hear Ann Coulter taking a position on
that.
>> Ann Coulter supports our military by supporting our Commander
>> in Chief and his agenda at a time of war.
Oh? Which war? Explain the agenda of the war you're talking about.
>> The Afghan and Iraqi Governments were both run by Barbarian's
>> right out of the Stone age breeding a people of hate toward American
>> Culture out of fear that they themselves may be overturned in favor
>> of western ideals in the form democracy and freedom.
"Right out of the Stone age?" Who are you, Barry Goldwater? Have you
ever been to Iraq? Have you ever been to Kabul? Do you not find Ms.
Coulter's fiery statements of hate and miscommunication as equally
barbaric as what some Muslim youths are given in madrasas around the
Arab world, especially in Pakistan, our "ally?" How does that make
Ms.Coulter less a product of the Stone Age? That she has the freedom
to behave the way she does?
The Taliban was certainly a cover for al-Qaeda. They were more or
less bankrolled and installed by al-Qaeda, and the operation to knock
the Taliban out of power was a reasonable and necessary response to
the 9/11 attacks. There was no other option but to attack Afghanistan
to dismantle the Taliban apparatus.
Iraq was run by one of world's most feared tyrants, a pint-sized
Hitler whose albeit secular reign we gave careful acquiescence to out
of short-term political need, with whom we shared intelligence up
until 1990 (a full two years after the chemical attacks on Kurdish
villages in Halabja and the Balisan and Bassay Valleys after no outcry
from the Reagan administration), who had at least been isolated and
was reigned in by late 2002 on the north and south by two massive
no-fly zones, greatly eroding his ability to control the Shi'ite
populations in the south and the Kurds in the north. He was blowing
all his money on palaces while his people starved and were kept in
state of fear by a dreaded secret police. Though defeated in the 1991
Kuwait War, Saddam's regime had no connection to the 9/11 attacks,
according to the 9/11 Commission and additional investigations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm Furthermore, Iraq had no active nuclear or biological programs past
1991, posed no threat to the U.S. or it's allies and only limited
threat to it's neighbors which had been put in check by the no-fly
zones and the guarantee of massive retaliation if said tyrant laid so
much as a fingernail on one of his neighbors.
To invade Iraq, which was not threatening us, we diverted men and
materials from the Afghan theater at the very moment they were needed
there the most to conclude operations and fully destroy al-Qaeda
elements along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, as well as install
some kind of democracy in a nation which has seen very little of it.
Democracy's hold in Afghanistan is, at present, tenuous, despite the
administration's willingness to put the theater of operations there on
the backburner, and Hamid Karzai's inability to control any part of
Afghanistan other than the three blocks of Kabul he does all his
business in. The man still needs a Green Beret detachment to guard
him just when he steps outside to get the paper in the morning.
I don't recall hearing Ann Coulter raising a voice of concern over
this willful misallocation of resources.
>> I bet if you took 6 seconds out of your show and read something
>> from the bible, your butt would be thrown off the air faster than you
>> could say Hillary Clinton!
Perhaps I'll do 12 seconds of the Bible. Do you have a favorite
verse? In fact, you may do well reading the Bible instead of reading
Ms. Coulter.
>> By the way If she were sitting with the Ted Kennedy clan while
>> partying in the Hamptons, would that make it O.K. for you then?
You brought this up earlier, and no it wouldn't. That having been
said, Ted Kennedy hasn't said the kind of hateful, cruel, willfully
ignorant things Ms. Coulter has. Therefore, any partying he may do
doesn't necessarily come off as being indulgent or
hypocritical...though I think Mr. Kennedy prefers Hyannis Port, not
the Hamptons.
>> You have to look at the bigger picture here and not just your
>> College professor's view on life.
A collegiate experience, if anything, hopefully enables one to learn
how to learn. An ability to think for one's self and discern and
evaluate and question is sort of the basic freshman expectation,
wouldn't you agree?
>> The only way to end the Muslim Extremist terrorist behavior is to
>> take them out, or do nothing and have them take you out and take
>> over our country.
"Muslim Extremist terrorist behavior," eh? Are all Muslims extreme?
Are all extremists terrorists? Do you know any Muslims? The way you
roll everything together in one neat, tidy package is consistent with
everything else you've written...but life and reality are more
complicated than that, and you're either regurgitating years' worth of
right-wing media or are distressingly ill-informed, at the very least
unable to see anything other than defined black/white camps. How sad.
You do see colors, right?
The United States is engaged in an emboldened struggle against
terrorist organizations primarily of radical Islamic origin. Though
there is no clear start and no clear end to this conflict, it is
reasonable to assume this is going to be a protracted,
sporadic-in-action struggle, as there are no defined lines. While the
country is engaged in this long-term series of operations, we owe it
to ourselves as Americans that the tyranny we are fighting against
does not replicate itself here on these shores by virtue of the fear
and paranoia inherent in any struggle between two belief systems. To
do so only allows, to coin a very 2001 phrase, "the terrorists to
win." Let's not become what we are fighting against. Let's not
become intolerant, close-minded or simple-minded in the
process...there is a great deal at stake, yes?
>> I don't think the environment would be high on their agenda, having
>> you bow down and kiss the ground 20 times a day until you do what
>> you're told would probably be number one on their list. I'm not paranoid
>> or fearful, I'm just telling you like it is.
You're telling me like it is, eh? I see. Shall I join you for a
breakfast of paranoia and fear in front of your right-wing wonk TV?
You believe an extremist element from overseas wants to take over this
country? Stop thinking like it's World War II. It's not about
property. Al-Qaeda's intent isn't to invade us, it's to kick us out
of Muslim holy lands like Saudi Arabia they feel are sacred because of
the presence of holy sites like Mecca and Medina.
In particular, al-Qaeda takes issue with the large U.S., i.e.
"infidel" bases in Saudi Arabia at King Fahd and King Abdul-Aziz Air
Bases in Dhahran; Jedeh, Khamis Mushayt and Prince Sultan Air Bases in
Al-Kharj; Eskan Village in Riyadh and the massive Riyadh Air Base
complex (a former colleague of mine from Seattle grew up on that base
as an Air Force "brat"); and the army bases at Tabuk and Taif.
Al-Qaeda is run by a psychotic billionaire (sort of like Ernst Stavro
Blofeld without the dialysis) whose aim is to combat what they see as
our exploitation of their lands. To achieve this aim, they want to
destabilize us and have us turn against our own democracy, the very
democracy they fear. They want us to become what they are, and they
are using our own fear and willful ignorance to do so by reducing all
democratic discourse to a cable TV shoutfest devoid of nuance. If
you're al-Qadea, this approach is a lot cheaper than invading, and say
what you want, they've got patience to burn.
>> "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation
>> away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought
>> for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only
>> once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it,
>> have never known it again." - Ronald Reagan
Well said, and I agree. So what do you think I'm criticizing Ann
Coulter for in the first place? She's not interested in freedom,
she's interested in groupthink enforced at the barrel of a gun. She
may yet make a fine tyrant, and she certainly has spelled everything
out for all to see a la Mein Kampf. She certainly is not taking any
of President Reagan's more lucid moments to heart. The last line in
Reagan's quote, in fact, is the most telling, and the gravest
warning...I advise you to take it to heart yourself and use it to keep
from being blinded by far right-wing hysteria and partisan, ignorant
cruelty.
>> Remember, people SUBSCRIBE to the newspaper, or to the
>> magazine with that certain person on the cover.
By that argument you are implying people don't subscribe to radio ~ so
how do you justify right-wing talk radio packaged and disguised as
"news and information?" Because it's something YOU agree with?
>> By the way, I think they raised the age of enlistment in the military,
>> why don't you sign up and then when you're through with your tour
>> of duty, email me back and let me know how it went.
They ought to reinstate the draft, and if I have to go in the ready
reserves, fine, I'll do it. Part of the problem right now is the
children of the elite and the elite themselves, even the children of
soccer moms, don't have to go and fight this country's wars, and that
is completely wrong if freedom is a burden to be equally shared by
all. There should be a draft and a ready reserve, and no one should
be excluded. After that common experience there will be a lot less
cheerleading when a President cherry picks convenient reasons to
pursue a war out of choice, not necessity.
>> There are people dying for you everyday so you can sit there at your
>> microphone and bitch about how our government and big corporations
>> have some sort of secret agenda in play in order to ruin this country.
Do you listen to my program? When have I sat "there at
microphone and bitch about how our government and big corporations
have some sort of secret agenda in play in order to ruin this
country." Can you name me an example of this?
And if you'll excuse me, how dare you try and belittle my approach to
discourse because a young man is dying in Iraq or elsewhere? What
makes you think that isn't a concern for me, that's what makes these
debates so utterly imperative right now, because people's lives are at
stake! How dare you? How does a G.I.'s death justify Ann Coulter's
stances on such things? How can you be so cruelly intolerant? I've
had listeners killed in Iraq, I've discussed Marines' funeral
announcements on the air, and do you really think these young men died
solely for the sake of Ann Coulter's ability to spew hate and
intolerance and deliberate misunderstanding while wrapping herself in
the flag and running out the back door with cash stuffed in her
pockets in the process?! Did they die solely for your ability to do
the same? How dare you characterize these decent young men's deaths
as such and put the weight of their deaths on a person's shoulders!
Big corporations, by the way, don't want to ruin this country...they
benefit too much from the liberty we take for granted, and the liberty
these young men are ideally fighting and dying for. That doesn't,
however, mean said corporations are above the law, or do you enjoy
seeing this state being manhandled by an out-of-control entity like
Enron, enabled by Dick Cheney's corner of the administration?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
