Christopher Moore Home Page

The bulletin board is currently closed to new posts. Instead, why not check out Chris' Twitter and Facebook pages?


bbs.chrismoore.com Forum Index -> News and Noise

Left Behind
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Do you think the "Left Behind" series is f*cking with people's heads?
Yes
54%
 54%  [ 6 ]
No
27%
 27%  [ 3 ]
Left where?
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Burn in hell, Blasphemer!
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 11

  Author    Thread This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Lara



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2061
Location: NorCal, USA
Left Behind  Reply with quote  

I'm thinking that whole "Left Behind" series is really f*cking with people's heads...

Psychiatrists testified that Laney believed she was divinely chosen by God - just as Mary was chosen to bear Christ - to kill her children as a test of faith and then serve as a witness after the world ended.


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040403115909990002
_________________
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." ~ http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays


http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1286305849

Post Sat Apr 03, 2004 8:23 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lara



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2061
Location: NorCal, USA
Darn AOL  Reply with quote  

I kust realized you can't read the article if you don't have AOL... anyhow, the woman who stoned her kids to death was aquitted. 3 kids. Dead. Aquitted because she said "God told me to do it."
*
TYLER, Texas (April 4) - A woman who claimed God ordered her to bash in the heads of her sons was acquitted of all charges by reason of insanity Saturday after a jury determined she did not know right from wrong during the killings.

A jury found that Deanna Laney was legally insane May 9 when she killed her two older sons, ages 6 and 8, in the front yard and left the youngest, now 2, maimed in his crib. Laney, 39, would have received an automatic life sentence had she been convicted of capital murder. Where is a group of pro-lifers when you need them?

Laney broke into tears as the verdict was read. Poor thing, she must have been so upset to find out she wasn't actually guilty of murder... maybe God has wiggle room in that whole "pro-life" agenda. Her husband, Keith Laney, sat solemnly with his head down. A few jurors cried and struggled to maintain their composure.

State law allows Laney to be committed to a maximum security state hospital. Medical evaluations will dictate when she will be released. Ex-squeeze me? Released? She will remain at the Smith County Jail until a hearing regarding her transfer. Maybe God will bust her out...

Defense attorney Tonda Curry said the verdict doesn't mean Laney escaped punishment. WTF????? What if she had said SATAN told her to do it! That's what I'm wondering... I didn't see anyone telling the Son of Sam, "it's okay, dude, Satan sometimes asks us to do weird things..."

"Now and for the rest of her life, the punishment and torment that's going on in her own head is more significant and more damaging to her than anything the criminal justice system could have done, other than death,'' Curry said. Maybe it's the dominatrix in me, but I can think of one or two things more damaging...

All five mental health experts consulted in the case, including two for the prosecution and one for the judge, concluded that a severe mental illness caused Laney to have psychotic delusions that rendered her incapable of knowing right from wrong during the killings - the standard in Texas for insanity. Texas? I should have known...

Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham said had no regrets about taking the case to trial.

"This is a case that the citizens of this county needed to make the decision on,'' he said. Yeah, all twelve of us...

Jurors deliberated about seven hours before reaching their verdict in the deaths of 8-year-old Joshua and 6-year-old Luke, and the beating of Aaron. The baby was found bleeding in his crib while the other two were found with their skulls smashed in the front yard. 7 hours? Damn, I hope they didn't skip a meal, poor things...

Defense attorneys argued that insanity was the only reason why a deeply religious mother who homeschooled her children would kill two of them and maim another without so much as a tear. Yeah, as opposed to an agnostic woman who would cry and be all sad that her kids were dead and stuff...

"There was no crying,'' Curry said. "She was insane. There is no other answer.'' I've seen an insane person cry before. It happens and it isn't pretty.

Psychiatrists testified that Laney believed she was divinely chosen by God - just as Mary was chosen to bear Christ - to kill her children as a test of faith and then serve as a witness after the world ended. Um, I'm thinking the whole point would be moot if Mary had bashed her kid's brains out... Picture it, St. Whatever announces: "And up next to the Throne of God, the Almighty Savior's two favorite saints... the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savoir and her best buddy Mrs. Laney, the woman who bashed her kids' heads in with rocks because I told her to! What Faith! We have a special surprise for Mrs. Laney, here's her three kids! Boys, go hug your mother... boys, don't be that way... be nice to your mother, she's a saint now... Joshua, it's not nice to stick your tongue out at a saint."

In a videotape played at her trial, Laney said she saw her youngest son play with a spear, hold a rock and squeeze a frog, and took them all as signs from God that she should kill her children. I saw my friend's kid spit up blue milk, once.

In closing arguments earlier Saturday, prosecutors portrayed the killings last Mother's Day weekend as deceptively planned and coldly executed.

"It was graphic, it was horrific and it was brutal,'' Bingham told the jury. Come on, dude, it wasn't all that bad... after all, she was AQUITTED.

Bingham pounded his fist in his hand as he recounted Joshua's killing: "He got strike after strike after strike on his head to the point that his brains were coming out of his head like liquid.'' Where are all of the pro-lifers? Cat got their tongue? Can't shake the whole "God" reference?

Prosecutors said that even if Laney believed she was doing right by God, she had to have known she was doing wrong by state law. Her first call, they pointed out, was to 911 to summon authorities. Well, that settles it then...

The 911 tape was among the evidence jurors reviewed during deliberations. Jurors also had asked for psychiatric testimony to resolve a disagreement over why Deanna Laney stopped beating Aaron, then 14 months old, but they reached a verdict before receiving the transcript.

Psychiatrists testified that Laney couldn't finish killing the baby, and that she told God, "You're just going to have to do the rest.''

Prosecutors said that action indicated Laney knew right from wrong and that if she chose to disobey God's orders by not killing Aaron, she could have disobeyed his orders to kill the other two. God was unavailable for comment which led the judge to rule that the statement be stuck from the transcripts on the grounds that her comment was heresay.

Bingham said Aaron, who lives with his father, suffered permanent injuries in the attack. But God's cool with that... after all, if she had been a really bad person God would have smote her by now... ya' think?

So, basically, God told her to do it and probably said everything would work out fine... I'm starting to think there might be something to this whole god thing... I have the sudden urge to get married and pro-create me some martyrs.


04/04/04 05:06 EDT
_________________
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." ~ http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays


http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1286305849

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:19 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
suetu



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 1447
Location: San Francisco, CA
Respose  Reply with quote  

Lara,

This is a tragic, tragic case. But every doctor, whether for the defense or the prosecution agreed that this woman fit an absolute textbook definition of legal insanity. That is very unusual and a difficult defense to win. So, I'm inclined to agree with the verdict.

And the quote in the article is right. You don't think this woman is going to suffer every day for the rest of her life? Plus, she's not exactly going free. She'll be locked up in a mental institution for some time. What would be helped in this case if she went to jail for the rest of her life or was put to death by the execution-happy state of Texas?

Susan

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:04 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
deb



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 6325
Location: Montana
 Reply with quote  

The question of what would be helped by her being locked up for life is a simple one: Perhaps, maybe, the next woman who considers that she has been called (and Laney said she wanted to be like Andrea Yates, who by the way, was NOT considered insane and IS locked up) by God to beat the ever-loving life out of their child so that when a photographer snaps her picture as she's leaving the crime scene covered in the blood and brains and tissue of her three small children might think again about consequences. Justice should not serve the piety of people who choose to act upon the volition of harming others. When in this country people are arrested and sentenced to life in prison because they were defending themselves against an attacker who died in the attempt, we should not shroud ourselves in the insanity plea when a mother takes the life of her children.

An important fact to remember is that her lawyer is claiming she'll live with the horror of what she does for the rest of her life. I say that the horror she supplied her sons in their last minutes of their life far outweighs her horror. She should be locked up. I further suggest that the church in which she belonged should be also held accountable for reckless endangerment.

But I live in a rather simple world, at least in my mind. When you commit such a crime, you don't get to live it off in a psych ward. They are not considered prisoners there. That fact surprised me. They are patients, and as such have a much more lenient time of it than they would in prison. In California, the cost for keeping one patient in a maximum security mental hospital is nearly $108,000/year. At Atascadero, there are over 1000 patients. Budget issues? Deal with that one. It is fully 5 times more expensive to keep them in the nuthouse than it is to put them in general population in prison.

Andrea Yates, suffering from post-partum depression, is serving her life term. Dianne Laney should finally get what she hoped for when she "smote" her sons: a cell right next to Andrea.

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:24 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lara



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2061
Location: NorCal, USA
Tragedy versus Murder  Reply with quote  

There is no way I can agree with you, Susan.

“I was obeying God. I will accept prosecution to the fullest extent of the law for my actions because my belief is strong. His Kingdom awaits me in Heaven.”

She didn't say that because it would have been crazy.

“I killed my children and now I will jump from the top floor of the Empire State Building.”

She didn't do that because it would have been crazy.

She whimpered and whined that on May 9th (not the 10th, mind you, nor today) “I was insane”.

Sure, she might have been insane. A lot of people are insane when they commit mulitple homicides. In fact, I'll bet you 10 to 1, all of them were and still are insane.

And most of them are in prison. Or in office.

I joked that the Left Behind series was linked to this thread but I do not joke when I say that the Pre-Tribulation God many extremist Christians are worshipping these days is starting to look a hell of a more like a Destroyer than a Creator.

Yates said the “Devil told me to do it.” She’s serving life in prison.

Laney said “God told me to do it.” She’s acquitted.

Dogma aside, we’re talking legality. I can say that if she had had an abortion, I would defend her, so I may be a hypocrite. But plain and simple, an abortion is legal. Homicide is not legal.

The quote in the article is wrong. If she is repentant and suffering after the fact (as her defense implies), then she should be open to prosecution here on earth. She would be willing to accept her due.

Instead, the jury saw this poor, suffering childless mother and thought, "she's suffered enough."

There was no one there to defend the memory of the children. The one person who could have spoken for them, the one person in the world who should have died to save them, was the instrument of their death.

Deb’s quote is more to my liking: “Justice should not serve the piety of people who choose to act upon the volition of harming others.”

Laney’s been acquitted of the murders. What more proof does she and her soon-to-be-many-batshit-zealous followers need that she did God’s Will? God got her off. Got makes Cochran look like a mere mortal.

Laney admired Yates. Imagine how many will admire Laney.

Maybe now she can go visit her buddy Yates in prison and explain the difference between a martyr and a murderer.
_________________
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." ~ http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays


http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1286305849

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:11 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest





 Reply with quote  

I was not there...do not want to have been. Assuming that the five medical proffessionals were correct and she was insane, I agree with the verdict. I have seen mental illness similar to this. These people are not "in their right mind" and after medication are remarkably different. Is it right to kill another....no matter who it is? Most likely not. However, I refuse to condemn someone as completely as some of you have untlil I walk a mile in their shoes. I will not throw stones. These individuals do need to be removed from general population but I will gladly pay my taxes to make certain the perps are sent to the proper facility. It is a matter of compassion, intelligence and justice not religion. IMO.

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:04 pm   
chelle



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 31
Location: WV
 Reply with quote  

damn, I was not wussing out by not using my name....forgot to log in. Embarassed

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:05 pm   View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
deb



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 6325
Location: Montana
 Reply with quote  

Insanity is a legal word, not a mental health word. The psychologists did not testify to her being insane but one, and even then he was crossing a line. Why the prosecution didn't object to his testimony is beyond me. Nevertheless, the insanity plea was a defense, not a medical diagnosis.

Were you intentional in your use of the phrase "I will not throw stones"? Interesting analogy, given her method of murdering her little boys.

Religion was only an issue because Deanna Laney said God told her to do it. By that statement, and that she followed through, she was deemed insane. By this decision, it will bear upon all who follow god's word that the actions are insane. No? Where is the line that says following god's word is insanity drawn? At "love one another" or at "kill your children"? Which is the more insane notion?

To have determined that she did anything other than follow her own desires in killing her children, and then using the very god she claims to be devoted to as an excuse for committing murder, and then further having the courts protect her from her responsibility by stating she was insane at the time, and protect her from the consequences she "didn't even give a thought to" before taking the life of her boys, the word "justice" should be left in the dictionary.

Is that throwing stones? Hardly. Watch the CourtTV videos of her discussing her actions that night. Listen to her talk about how she thought Joshua would "have a conniption fit" if he saw Luke's body, and how she dragged her son by his feet with a rock weighing down his chest to hide his body from her other son so she didn't have to struggle with him because "Joshua was bigger and could put up more of a fuss".

One need not walk a mile in these shoes to see the guilt.

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:55 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chelle



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 31
Location: WV
 Reply with quote  

I did not inentionally use the phrase throw stones but it still fits metaphorically. I can't prove she did not hear voices. I can't prove she did. I think if she were trying to get by with killing her sons a more "rational" killer would have chosen a less violent method. I firmly (again opinon because that is all we have here....the opinion of her frame of mind and what to do with her now.) believe that she would have used a less violent method if she had just wanted to kill them and get away with it. I am saddened by the fact that those children are dead, died a violent death and that the surviving child will be scarred forever.

I am a Christian by faith (although not a traditional one) but my opinion has nothing to do with her claim it was god. I believe the woman that drowned the children in the bathtub was also "insane" or whatever term you want to use. I try to live with the message( I believe) Christ brought and it was one of kindness, forgiveness and compassion. If ever there was a person that needed love and compassion it would be someone so low in their life.

But then again I don't believe in the death penalty or being cruel to prisoners whether foreign or domestic. That is me. We are lucky to live where we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion. I was just airing mine.

Post Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:43 pm   View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Nivasi



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5
 Reply with quote  

Interesting discussion to start off my first visit here with, yes? *L*

Lara, I loved your posts, simply because they were so cutting and witty I lol'd at them. Serious subject to be laughing at, but I have a strange sense of humor, and your's was quite enjoyable.

My impression of mental institutions for the criminally insane was that they are, in effect, prisons. The patients are treated by doctors but they're locked in cells, and not allowed out--except under strict, armed supervision-- as opposed to non-criminal insane asylums where the patients have a measure of freedom, at least within the facility. Since I don't know the facility this woman is being sent to, I dont think we can determine if this less of a punishment for her than a regular prison.

It was also my impression that it's a lot more difficult for a patient to be discharged from a criminal insane asylum than it is for a prisoner to be paroled. Take Hinkley. How many years has it been since he tried to assassinate the President? And it's only been in the last year that he was allowed outside the facility on short day trips. Moreover, when he was, people rang up a hue and cry about it.

Until those two shadey areas are cleared up, unequivocably, I can't make a determination as to whether or not this woman got off easy.


Was she insane? I don't know. I'm not a doctor and even if I was, I haven't personally seen, or treated, Laney so it's not up to me to make that determination. Twelve jurors thought she was insane, but then, what person isn't who kills their own children? Or stands by and does nothing while another abuses or murders them.

In a truly humane society, ALL criminals would be sent to an asylum to be treated by professionals until they were deemed sane enough to be allowed into the public again. Instead, we send them to concrete boxes to watch television, read magazines, and socialize with other criminals so they can all learn how to be Better criminals. Then we push them back out into society with little to no mental health treatment, and few job skills so they can go back to being criminals...and return again to concrete boxes to start the whole process over again.

Now that's insane.

Post Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:23 am   View user's profile Send private message
Lara



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2061
Location: NorCal, USA
Hi Nivasi  Reply with quote  

Maybe it's because you said I was funny Wink , but I agree with you... about all prisoners being sent to a treatment center. My father used to work for Prison Fellowship (a Christian organization... he's now a Buddhist) that brought the "Word" into prisons. He said prisons are the worst thing we can do to a criminal, not in terms of punishment but in terms of habilitation. Prisons turn petty thieves into much much worse.

Christ taught to forgive people but I don't think that meant have them over for tea or let them watch your kids or even let them see the light of day. If she had killed someone else's children, they would not have allowed the insanity plea to even be uttered in court. A truly repentant murderer will accept the consequences of her actions. An unrepentant woman will plead insanity.

I guess what really irks me (no offense Chelle) is that the "end of days" mythos taking root in our Christian society is bringing to the forefront some dangerous behaviors in the name of God. Our mothers are killing in the name of God, our administration is bombing in the name of God, it seems everyone wants to get in on the action, play a part in Armageddon. People are trying to bring down the final curtain because they believe some random short story put into a collection of short stories (imagine if a Trekkies' book collection were gathered a thousand years from now and translated as fact~ no offense, Kurt Wink ). Back in the days of the Crusades and such, a lot of people killed and died in the name of God, but this time around, we have the ability to really end things. In some minds, Weapons of Mass Destruction wait quietly for someone appointed by God to push the red button.

So, although Laney triggered the fit I had (no offense Suetu, you rock and I adore you) it goes deeper than that...

I still stand by my initial opinion. This is not a perfect world, unfortunately and I don't believe someone who can murder children should expect to walk free, ever ever ever again. Although the moint is poot since the verdict has already been read, as deb so perfectly put it 'Dianne Laney should finally get what she hoped for when she "smote" her sons: a cell right next to Andrea'.

IMHO
_________________
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." ~ http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays


http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1286305849

Post Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:00 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lara



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 2061
Location: NorCal, USA
Hi Chelle  Reply with quote  

I enjoy sharing opinions, also. I used to take things a lot more personally until Tito came along and snapped me out of it. I figure we've all got our own version of the Truth and we're just muddling by until the the real Truth comes along.

That said... you said:

I have seen mental illness similar to this. These people are not "in their right mind" and after medication are remarkably different.

Yes, I agree. After medication some seriously disturbed people are quite sane. But here's has that goes (in my experience)... I work next to a building that is a large (100 rooms at least) halfway house for the "insane" people who were kicked out of the local in-patient mental health facility after budget cuts a few years back. These people wander through the radio station all of the time (hell, some of them are on-air personalities, no joke). When they walk into the room, we can tell straight off when they've forgotten to take their meds. One time a guy I'll call Richard walked in and he was sweating, tembling and crying. He began asking me very strange questions and reached across the desk to grab my shirt as he made some vague point. I leaned back and asked, "Richard, have you taken your meds today?" I was joking for a moment, but beginning to get frightened because Richard was usually a very calm and witty middle-aged man and I was alone in the office and having flashbacks to the movie "Patch Adams"... He said, almost verbatim, "No, because I was feeling much better and didn't think I needed them..." I told him that he should go back upstairs and take his meds and then take a nap. He said, Okay.

What if he hadn't said "okay"? What if, in his paranoid and delusional state, he had reverted to his former, violent personality?

Medicating violent offenders is like putting a muzzle on a vicious dog. That muzzle had best be secure and there had better be someone watching over that muzzle at all times. And if you think comparing humans to animals is wrong, keep in mind I am an animal rights activist. I have more compassion for a vicious dog than I do for a vicious human but I have no delusions that an animal, human or canine, won't revert to its basic instincts with little notice and wreak havoc on the general population. If we are going to choose drugs and behavioral treatment over incarceration or euthenasia, we had better be prepared for the responsibility we have taken on. This woman should never walk the streets again. Not in this lifetime.
_________________
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." ~ http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays


http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1286305849

Post Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:49 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chelle



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 31
Location: WV
 Reply with quote  

Lara I definately agree with you. That is what I meant that they should be removed from the general population. People that have shown this capacity for violence but are helped by meds still should not be running around in free society. A hospital for the criminally insane would not be my choice either but since we dont have "asylums" anymore it is the only option. Asylums had good and bad points. They were underfunded and the staff over worked and often the clients mistreated. However, now we have the problem that you run into with the truly troubled running around with no "safe" place to be. On both subjects of people that kill for what ever reason and the mentally ill...there is no clear answer.

Oh, and I appologize if my posts are "snotty." Unfortunately, that is the way I sound most of the time although I dont mean to. Confused

Post Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:32 am   View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Tan



Joined: 04 Mar 2004
Posts: 103
Location: hiding from the kids...
just my thoughts  Reply with quote  

I don't know if I can express the way I feel without really offending someone.
I believe I am a compassionate person, a reasonable person, in all other aspects a liberal peron...but I believe that when she chose to kill her children her rights ended. Period. There should be no 'let's move on and see if she can be rehabilitated hoping that other mothers don't see her as a martyr who escaped the death penalty.' Of course I do not know the whole story, I did not experience what the jury must have gone through in making their decision. I still feel very strongly that murderers in our society do not fear the consequence of the death penalty. Our society does not use it often enough.

Insanity, even temporarily, does not give a peron the right to second chances. (I have the same opinion about drug/alcohol use and murder but that's another topic) People may argue that spending the rest of her life in a mental institution will be worse than a prison...then why inprison her? Let her die so she can be with her god who told her to murder. I doubt if any of the jurors would have aqquitted her because she said god told her to do it. Christians believe in a peaceful loving God, I like someone's comment above about how Christianity is being distorted to justify taking over a country or in this case, taking two lives. Insane or not, I believe she is a criminal.

Post Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:43 am   View user's profile Send private message
suetu



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 1447
Location: San Francisco, CA
Yikes!  Reply with quote  

Well, I stated my opinion earlier, and I stand by it. No offense intended to others or taken. I generally don't feel the need to come back and continue arguing "my side." However, I'll state briefly that you guys know that I, of all people on this board, would be least likely to excuse murder in the name of Christian piety.

Also, you guys are talking like matricide is just any old crime. Women don't murder their children because they think they can "get away with it." I believe in the vast, vast, vast majority of these cases it's because the woman is PROFOUNDLY disturbed. (An exception to this are cases of long-term abuse ending in death, which I do not attribute to mental illness.) And I do believe mental illness is a legitimate mitigating factor. Gosh, folks, that can strike any one of us. It's an ILLNESS. It makes people behave in ways they never would otherwise. Try to have a little compassion.

Lastly, no one is more scared by the sudden Christ mania in this country than me, but I've already shared that rant with you guys. Welcome to my world.

Happy Passover.

Susan

Post Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:22 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
  Display posts from previous:      
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 
Templates created by Vereor and Ken