imortal
Member
+240|7108|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

What do you expect of a state that mandates that all school principles learn spanish?

Oh, and Texas will not allow "immersion English" courses (a teaching method where nothing but english is spoken in order to help and force students to pick the language up faster) because they say "studies have shown" that immersion teaching does not work, but offer immersion Spansh courses to anyone who wants to learn Spanish.
So, in a roundabout way, they're implying that Hispanics are too dumb or lazy to handle immersion English...  lol
Hey, how did these words get in my mouth???  No, Turq, what I am saying is that 'the powers that be' and run the education system here in the Great State of Texas couldn't pour piss out of a boot with printed instructions on the heel.  Why do you think I am death on goverment run schools?

Oh, and here in Texas, the top 10% of high school graduates from any school in the state are automatically accepted in the state college of their choice.  No matter if one graduate is the 10% from the lowest scoring school in the state, they still knock out the 11% from the highest ranked school. 

Oh, and it is easier to get accepted to the University of Texas as an illegal alien than it is as an out-of-state student.

Last edited by imortal (2007-07-26 20:53:30)

SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6573|North Tonawanda, NY

Warstarz wrote:

Let's see here.


Believe that a random ball randomly exploded and just happened to make the universe or that a guy that looks like ZZ Top made us?

ZZ Top FTW


BTW, saying a ball came out of nowhere and exploded and happened to create what we see today is fact is just as stupid as saying God did it. No one knows what came before that ball or where it came from. Know why? Because science isn't fact. It's a theory. Just like religion is a faith. Neither one is perfectly right and I'm sure neither one is wrong.


*puts on flame retardant suit and curls up into fetal position*
One of the reasons that religion exists is to explain the unexplainable.  Man has only recently begun to theorize the origins of the universe.  See my earlier post about theory.  Make sure you understand the difference. 

Besides, which is easier to accept?  A ball of stuff whose origin is unknown created the universe or the dude that looks like ZZ top, whose origin is also unknown, created the world as we know it out of stuff that appeared from his similar nowhere.

Personally, I find the ball of stuff more logical.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

What do you expect of a state that mandates that all school principles learn spanish?

Oh, and Texas will not allow "immersion English" courses (a teaching method where nothing but english is spoken in order to help and force students to pick the language up faster) because they say "studies have shown" that immersion teaching does not work, but offer immersion Spansh courses to anyone who wants to learn Spanish.
So, in a roundabout way, they're implying that Hispanics are too dumb or lazy to handle immersion English...  lol
Hey, how did these words get in my mouth???  No, Turq, what I am saying is that 'the powers that be' and run the education system here in the Great State of Texas couldn't pour piss out of a boot with printed instructions on the heel.  Why do you think I am death on goverment run schools?
I'm not calling you a racist.  I'm calling the government racists.

This is like affirmative action all over again.  They treat minorities with kid gloves, and on the surface, it looks like they're being sensitive.

If you read between the lines though, they basically are treating minorities like they are less capable of adapting.

Whatever the case, I lean in the school vouchers direction, so I know what you mean.
imortal
Member
+240|7108|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

This is like affirmative action all over again.  They treat minorities with kid gloves, and on the surface, it looks like they're being sensitive.

If you read between the lines though, they basically are treating minorities like they are less capable of adapting.
Welcome to the silent liberal point of view.  We need to classify everyone into groups and treat them all with equal respect by giving them special privliges since they can't get them on their own.

Why have Gay rights? Women's rights?  Minority rights?  Why not have universal rights, and treat everyone equally without having to catagorize everyone?

But if a liberal can classify and label a group, it makes it easier to turn those people against people of another label. 

You want a fun science experiment (NOT LEGAL OR ETHICAL; DO NOT TRY FOR REAL)
1. Divide a class randomly into two groups. 
2. Give one group a green armband, give the other a red armband.
3. The Rules:
a. Only give the Red group homework.
b. The Green group gets a 15 point curve on all tests.
c. The Green group members can not show up for class on Friday.
d. The Red group has to stay late after class every day.

So, how long until you think fights break out?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

This is like affirmative action all over again.  They treat minorities with kid gloves, and on the surface, it looks like they're being sensitive.

If you read between the lines though, they basically are treating minorities like they are less capable of adapting.
Welcome to the silent liberal point of view.  We need to classify everyone into groups and treat them all with equal respect by giving them special privliges since they can't get them on their own.

Why have Gay rights? Women's rights?  Minority rights?  Why not have universal rights, and treat everyone equally without having to catagorize everyone?

But if a liberal can classify and label a group, it makes it easier to turn those people against people of another label. 

You want a fun science experiment (NOT LEGAL OR ETHICAL; DO NOT TRY FOR REAL)
1. Divide a class randomly into two groups. 
2. Give one group a green armband, give the other a red armband.
3. The Rules:
a. Only give the Red group homework.
b. The Green group gets a 15 point curve on all tests.
c. The Green group members can not show up for class on Friday.
d. The Red group has to stay late after class every day.

So, how long until you think fights break out?
Good points...  I have to defend gay rights though.

We need to remove marriage from the government, since it is a religious institution, and we must keep religion and state separate.

Instead, we could grandfather all marriages into a civil union system and add gay civil unions to the arrangement.  That way, we could give gays the same legal recognition of a union that heterosexuals already have.  No religious people would have any reason to be offended either, because the government wouldn't be tampering with their customs.

Other than that, I agree with your post.
Warstarz
Member
+11|6874

SenorToenails wrote:

Warstarz wrote:

Let's see here.


Believe that a random ball randomly exploded and just happened to make the universe or that a guy that looks like ZZ Top made us?

ZZ Top FTW


BTW, saying a ball came out of nowhere and exploded and happened to create what we see today is fact is just as stupid as saying God did it. No one knows what came before that ball or where it came from. Know why? Because science isn't fact. It's a theory. Just like religion is a faith. Neither one is perfectly right and I'm sure neither one is wrong.


*puts on flame retardant suit and curls up into fetal position*
One of the reasons that religion exists is to explain the unexplainable.  Man has only recently begun to theorize the origins of the universe.  See my earlier post about theory.  Make sure you understand the difference. 

Besides, which is easier to accept?  A ball of stuff whose origin is unknown created the universe or the dude that looks like ZZ top, whose origin is also unknown, created the world as we know it out of stuff that appeared from his similar nowhere.

Personally, I find the ball of stuff more logical.
And I find God more logical. It comes down to opinion which makes it pointless to argue. It's just going to go around in circles until someone gives up.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6573|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Good points...  I have to defend gay rights though.

We need to remove marriage from the government, since it is a religious institution, and we must keep religion and state separate.

Instead, we could grandfather all marriages into a civil union system and add gay civil unions to the arrangement.  That way, we could give gays the same legal recognition of a union that heterosexuals already have.  No religious people would have any reason to be offended either, because the government wouldn't be tampering with their customs.

Other than that, I agree with your post.
Marriage is a legal institution.  You do not need a priest to marry, a judge can perform the ceremony.  It has roots in religion, from back in the days when religion was the authority of that realm.  Marriage right that the gay community wants (and should get) are legal protections that are withheld under the out-dated definition of marriage as the union of a "man and a woman".
imortal
Member
+240|7108|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

This is like affirmative action all over again.  They treat minorities with kid gloves, and on the surface, it looks like they're being sensitive.

If you read between the lines though, they basically are treating minorities like they are less capable of adapting.
Welcome to the silent liberal point of view.  We need to classify everyone into groups and treat them all with equal respect by giving them special privliges since they can't get them on their own.

Why have Gay rights? Women's rights?  Minority rights?  Why not have universal rights, and treat everyone equally without having to catagorize everyone?

But if a liberal can classify and label a group, it makes it easier to turn those people against people of another label. 

You want a fun science experiment (NOT LEGAL OR ETHICAL; DO NOT TRY FOR REAL)
1. Divide a class randomly into two groups. 
2. Give one group a green armband, give the other a red armband.
3. The Rules:
a. Only give the Red group homework.
b. The Green group gets a 15 point curve on all tests.
c. The Green group members can not show up for class on Friday.
d. The Red group has to stay late after class every day.

So, how long until you think fights break out?
Good points...  I have to defend gay rights though.

We need to remove marriage from the government, since it is a religious institution, and we must keep religion and state separate.

Instead, we could grandfather all marriages into a civil union system and add gay civil unions to the arrangement.  That way, we could give gays the same legal recognition of a union that heterosexuals already have.  No religious people would have any reason to be offended either, because the government wouldn't be tampering with their customs.

Other than that, I agree with your post.
I offer an alternative.  Get the goverment out of weddings in the first frigging place.  Instead, call the goverment joining (formally known as a wedding lisense) to a civic union or joining.  This, by my personal law and decree, cannot judge or make a bias against any two people requesting a joining, and grants all of the same rights and privillages as marriage currently does.

As for marriage, it has always been a religious event.  Leave the wedding stuff to the churches, and whether "gay marriages" are allowed depends on your personal faith.

As far as I can figure out, that makes it equal for everyone, and only pisses off people who want to keep from treating "them strange, other folk" differently.

**EDITED becuase it is late and I cannot speel.  Spell. whatever.  get off my back.**

Last edited by imortal (2007-07-26 21:13:17)

pj666
Member
+16|6808|Sydney, Australia
Scientific theory does not equal truth. A scientific theory is accepted as being something that can't be disproved by tests, and stands until disproved.

Religions posits truth. In some cases, maintaining it in the face of no evidence (and sometimes contrary evidence), is said to be faith. I think true faith is something different (but that's an entire other thread).

However, unquestioning support of any religious (or scientific) belief is just plain stupid. Some people say they have faith, but I see little difference between those cultists who gather waiting for the big space ship to come pick them up, and those who insist the Bible is correct in every word and the world was created in 7 days 7000 odd years ago. That's not faith, that's blind stupidity.

I don't know if God created the world or the universe, but I like to think so (lack of faith, huh?). I once heard a radio program where the guy who "found" DNA said he set out to do so to prove God didn't exist. That seemed slightly sick and wrong to me.

But if "he" did create it, it wasn't 7,000 years ago in 7 days. It was billions of years ago when he said, "hmmm, Big Bang, let's try that ...". Or even possibly gazillions of years ago (if you believe in the Big Bang-Big Crunch theorem).

Basic historical, linguistic and anthropolpgical analysis shows the Bible was written and rewritten over time, sometimes long after the supposed events. However, many of the moral lessons and principles espoused (more in the New testament than the Old, which is a bit fire and brimstone in Olde Israel) are relevant and appropriate. that's what to take from the Bible IMO.

Those who insist on ramming that literal Bible type of belief down others throats, including via the school system, are the type of people who cry foul when "evil liberals" try to ram their secular beliefs by heaven forbid putting a contrary argument.

It is also just as bad as any other extreme of religion, like the Taliban banning women from school and public, extreme imams preaching jihad and martyrdom, Orthodox Jews decrying fellow Jews as "nazis" for not agreeing with them, and Hindus demolishing mosques in India.

The Islamic Middle East was once more scientifically advanced that the West, about 1000-1300AD. However, they came to a choice where they had to continue questioning religious "truths" if they wanted to test how the world worked, or they had to take how the world on "faith". Guess how that turned out?

The West's ongoing questioning of how the world works (decried by the church) by people like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc (often at the cost of persecution or death) gives us our view of the modern world (quantum theory, iPods, instant whipped cream). Questioning the divine right of kings to rule also gives us the democractic principles of today.

You have to differentiate between questioning God and questioning those who preach in his name and claim to know what he wants us all to do. Funnily enough, the latter often fall back on the former when the questions get tough. That's the sign of a weak argument.

Go argue with a Jesuit some time. You don't get too much palm off, even if you get a bit of agreeing to disagree. Any religious person who is genuinely interested in convincing you doesn't end up insisting they are just right and you better lump it.

I'll go with gnosticism thanks ....
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good points...  I have to defend gay rights though.

We need to remove marriage from the government, since it is a religious institution, and we must keep religion and state separate.

Instead, we could grandfather all marriages into a civil union system and add gay civil unions to the arrangement.  That way, we could give gays the same legal recognition of a union that heterosexuals already have.  No religious people would have any reason to be offended either, because the government wouldn't be tampering with their customs.

Other than that, I agree with your post.
Marriage is a legal institution.  You do not need a priest to marry, a judge can perform the ceremony.  It has roots in religion, from back in the days when religion was the authority of that realm.  Marriage right that the gay community wants (and should get) are legal protections that are withheld under the out-dated definition of marriage as the union of a "man and a woman".
I agree with you in principle, but I daresay that most of the country disagrees with us.

Most people here seem to see marriage as mostly a religious institution.  That being said, we should probably use a different term for it, since it muddles the issue.

If we use "civil union" instead, it can be more easily defined as a civil rights issue.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:


Welcome to the silent liberal point of view.  We need to classify everyone into groups and treat them all with equal respect by giving them special privliges since they can't get them on their own.

Why have Gay rights? Women's rights?  Minority rights?  Why not have universal rights, and treat everyone equally without having to catagorize everyone?

But if a liberal can classify and label a group, it makes it easier to turn those people against people of another label. 

You want a fun science experiment (NOT LEGAL OR ETHICAL; DO NOT TRY FOR REAL)
1. Divide a class randomly into two groups. 
2. Give one group a green armband, give the other a red armband.
3. The Rules:
a. Only give the Red group homework.
b. The Green group gets a 15 point curve on all tests.
c. The Green group members can not show up for class on Friday.
d. The Red group has to stay late after class every day.

So, how long until you think fights break out?
Good points...  I have to defend gay rights though.

We need to remove marriage from the government, since it is a religious institution, and we must keep religion and state separate.

Instead, we could grandfather all marriages into a civil union system and add gay civil unions to the arrangement.  That way, we could give gays the same legal recognition of a union that heterosexuals already have.  No religious people would have any reason to be offended either, because the government wouldn't be tampering with their customs.

Other than that, I agree with your post.
I offer an alternative.  Get the goverment out of weddings in the first frigging place.  Instead, call the goverment joining (formally known as a wedding lisense) to a civic union or joining.  This, by my personal law and decree, cannot judge or make a bias against any two people requesting a joining, and grants all of the same rights and privillages as marriage currently does.

As for marriage, it has always been a religious event.  Leave the wedding stuff to the churches, and whether "gay marriages" are allowed depends on your personal faith.

As far as I can figure out, that makes it equal for everyone, and only pisses off people who want to keep from treating "them strange, other folk" differently.

**EDITED becuase it is late and I cannot speel.  Spell. whatever.  get off my back.**
Um...  I think you basically copied my idea.  I really don't see a difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6573|North Tonawanda, NY

Warstarz wrote:

And I find God more logical. It comes down to opinion which makes it pointless to argue. It's just going to go around in circles until someone gives up.
If you reread my original post, you will see that I never once claimed that you were wrong.  At a point it does come down to a personal preference, and as a scientist, I am much more willing to accept science.  However, science should be taught in science classes, not religion.  Does sunday school teach principles of organic chemistry?  I didn't think so.
imortal
Member
+240|7108|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  I think you basically copied my idea.  I really don't see a difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.
...except I thought of it a year ago when this was all topical.  And I wrote it first.  I think.  Maybe.  Wanna share it?

Who would think we would actually AGREE on something, anyway?

***okay, I didn't write it first.  But I still thought it up a year ago!***

Last edited by imortal (2007-07-26 21:17:56)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  I think you basically copied my idea.  I really don't see a difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.
...except I thought of it a year ago when this was all topical.  And I wrote it first.  I think.  Maybe.  Wanna share it?

Who would think we would actually AGREE on something, anyway?
LOL...  I was thinking of the same thing back during that ridiculous 2004 election.  How gay marriage became the main issue is beyond me....

And remember, I'm still a civil libertarian -- I'm just not fond of a lot of Libertarian economic ideas.
imortal
Member
+240|7108|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  I think you basically copied my idea.  I really don't see a difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.
...except I thought of it a year ago when this was all topical.  And I wrote it first.  I think.  Maybe.  Wanna share it?

Who would think we would actually AGREE on something, anyway?
LOL...  I was thinking of the same thing back during that ridiculous 2004 election.  How gay marriage became the main issue is beyond me....

And remember, I'm still a civil libertarian -- I'm just not fond of a lot of Libertarian economic ideas.
I am a huge believe***R*** in the Fair Tax, but I agree that we will more than likely need more goverment oversight of business (as much as I despise the concept) until our attitudes and belief system changes.

Last edited by imortal (2007-07-26 21:20:47)

SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6573|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

I agree with you in principle, but I daresay that most of the country disagrees with us.

Most people here seem to see marriage as mostly a religious institution.  That being said, we should probably use a different term for it, since it muddles the issue.

If we use "civil union" instead, it can be more easily defined as a civil rights issue.
Times change, and people need to change with it.  People see marriage as a religious institution because people usually get married in churches.  My brother got married in a court room.  Does that make the marriage to his wife any less valid?  No.  People have mixed the legal definition of marriage with the religious traditions associated in order to stop gay rights.  People need to get over themselves and ignore what other people do in their own lives.
SGT.Mays
Member
+2|7185|Ohio
Fuck evolutuion, till you can prove that cromagnum man wasnt just a retard that fell into a tarpit while the smarter humans didnt.

I love people that are atheists if you dont care or believe in a God why does it bug you so much when someone else does?
You feel threatened by the fact you may be wrong or are you just trying to save our souls?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I agree with you in principle, but I daresay that most of the country disagrees with us.

Most people here seem to see marriage as mostly a religious institution.  That being said, we should probably use a different term for it, since it muddles the issue.

If we use "civil union" instead, it can be more easily defined as a civil rights issue.
Times change, and people need to change with it.  People see marriage as a religious institution because people usually get married in churches.  My brother got married in a court room.  Does that make the marriage to his wife any less valid?  No.  People have mixed the legal definition of marriage with the religious traditions associated in order to stop gay rights.  People need to get over themselves and ignore what other people do in their own lives.
Hey, I totally agree, but I just think the civil union approach will be more successful policy-wise.

Once you isolate the issue and terminology down to completely legal connotations, the Religious Right typically hits a brick wall in their arguments.  No matter what the Bible has to say, they can't deny that the Constitution makes us a free country -- including being free to be gay and, by logical extension, free to form a gay couple.
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|7135

SGT.Mays wrote:

Fuck evolutuion, till you can prove that cromagnum man wasnt just a retard that fell into a tarpit while the smarter humans didnt.

I love people that are atheists if you dont care or believe in a God why does it bug you so much when someone else does?
You feel threatened by the fact you may be wrong or are you just trying to save our souls?
Lol. Read a book dumbass. Cromagnum = Modern humans, except a tiny bit smaller of a brain than us.
SGT.Mays
Member
+2|7185|Ohio

Superior Mind wrote:

SGT.Mays wrote:

Fuck evolutuion, till you can prove that cromagnum man wasnt just a retard that fell into a tarpit while the smarter humans didnt.

I love people that are atheists if you dont care or believe in a God why does it bug you so much when someone else does?
You feel threatened by the fact you may be wrong or are you just trying to save our souls?
Lol. Read a book dumbass. Cromagnum = Modern humans, except a tiny bit smaller of a brain than us.
My point.... exactly
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6573|North Tonawanda, NY

SGT.Mays wrote:

Fuck evolutuion, till you can prove that cromagnum man wasnt just a retard that fell into a tarpit while the smarter humans didnt.

I love people that are atheists if you dont care or believe in a God why does it bug you so much when someone else does?
You feel threatened by the fact you may be wrong or are you just trying to save our souls?
I am not an atheist.  I am an agnostic, and I don't care about god.  I think that public schools, funded by tax dollars, should not teach religion in any form.  Like I said before, teach science in science class, not religion.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

SGT.Mays wrote:

Fuck evolutuion, till you can prove that cromagnum man wasnt just a retard that fell into a tarpit while the smarter humans didnt.

I love people that are atheists if you dont care or believe in a God why does it bug you so much when someone else does?
You feel threatened by the fact you may be wrong or are you just trying to save our souls?
Another point for evolution is that it DOES NOT rule out God.  God could quite possibly be the initiator of the evolutionary process.  Being a Christian yourself, you may want to consider that mindset.  It certainly makes more logical sense than taking Genesis literally.
imortal
Member
+240|7108|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I agree with you in principle, but I daresay that most of the country disagrees with us.

Most people here seem to see marriage as mostly a religious institution.  That being said, we should probably use a different term for it, since it muddles the issue.

If we use "civil union" instead, it can be more easily defined as a civil rights issue.
Times change, and people need to change with it.  People see marriage as a religious institution because people usually get married in churches.  My brother got married in a court room.  Does that make the marriage to his wife any less valid?  No.  People have mixed the legal definition of marriage with the religious traditions associated in order to stop gay rights.  People need to get over themselves and ignore what other people do in their own lives.
Hey, I totally agree, but I just think the civil union approach will be more successful policy-wise.

Once you isolate the issue and terminology down to completely legal connotations, the Religious Right typically hits a brick wall in their arguments.  No matter what the Bible has to say, they can't deny that the Constitution makes us a free country -- including being free to be gay and, by logical extension, free to form a gay couple.
Politics.  Can't scare your base like that.  They like having someone to tsk-tsk.  Ok, BOTH sides like having someone they think are lower than dirt and that they can feel justified looking down their nose at, even if they, at the same time,  are claiming how much they treat everyone like equals.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


Times change, and people need to change with it.  People see marriage as a religious institution because people usually get married in churches.  My brother got married in a court room.  Does that make the marriage to his wife any less valid?  No.  People have mixed the legal definition of marriage with the religious traditions associated in order to stop gay rights.  People need to get over themselves and ignore what other people do in their own lives.
Hey, I totally agree, but I just think the civil union approach will be more successful policy-wise.

Once you isolate the issue and terminology down to completely legal connotations, the Religious Right typically hits a brick wall in their arguments.  No matter what the Bible has to say, they can't deny that the Constitution makes us a free country -- including being free to be gay and, by logical extension, free to form a gay couple.
Politics.  Can't scare your base like that.  They like having someone to tsk-tsk.  Ok, BOTH sides like having someone they think are lower than dirt and that they can feel justified looking down their nose at, even if they, at the same time,  are claiming how much they treat everyone like equals.
Yes, quite ironic, isn't it?...

Maybe...  just maybe, more people in the middle will come together and get shit done.  I'm not holding my breath though...
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6964

SGT.Mays wrote:

Fuck evolutuion, till you can prove that cromagnum man wasnt just a retard that fell into a tarpit while the smarter humans didnt.

I love people that are atheists if you dont care or believe in a God why does it bug you so much when someone else does?
You feel threatened by the fact you may be wrong or are you just trying to save our souls?
I honestly think that, as a person with no religion, I am one of the few truly tolerant people when it comes to a religion. The chances of me blowing you up or yelling that your god is wrong compared to my god are quite slim, considering I don't have a god.

However, I do have a problem with people trying to cram their beliefs down my throat.

As far as feeling threatened, au contrair. I'm not the one that's part of a group that has to  catch 'em while their young and talk them into believing. Or talk them into faith while they're on death row.

There are no evangelical scientists or missionary biologists.

They are called teachers

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard