Feeds

back to article Hacktivists ransack Hitler defender's email

Self-proclaimed anti-fascist hackers have struck a major blow at controversial World War II historian David Irving by taking down two of his websites and publishing scores of his emails and private information. The 16,000-word missive posted to Wikileaks contains the names and contact details of supporters of Irving, who - among …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

Free speech?

Yes, he's a pillock and spouts a load of crap but I thought we lived in a free democracy - he has the right to say what he likes surely?

All these people who seem to think it's OK to break the law just because they don't agree with what he says are still criminals. They're just hypocritical criminals - their views are "better" than his? Says who?

You don't like what he says? - rebut it, ridicule it etc. Do not break the law - criminals are criminals. "Morality" is irrelevant (or should be) - why should you take his rights away (to privacy, free speech etc) just because you don't like him?

0
0

@AC 23:16

bravo

he's a massive cockhead, and I suppose mose people whose details have been leaked are too

still no excuse

0
0
WTF?

So the anti-fascists are saying:

"Say you believe in what we say or you're fair game for whatever happens to you. Nice windows, it'd be a shame if they were smashed, uh, "by accident"..."

Everyone has the right to their own opinions. If Irving can come up with some evidence that supports what he says then fair play to the man. He should be able to shout it from the rooftops if he wants to.

If he can't prove it- or if the activists can prove that he's definitely wrong, then tell him. Bring him evidence he can't refute and make a point of showing it to others as well so they're "inoculated" against his incorrect claims.

We live in a highly technological society. Factually incorrect ideas should be pretty easy to root out.

Also, if this is his fervent belief then surely it's as protected under law as someone saying "Climate change is bollocks"?

To further muddy these hypocritical waters, I think anti-fascists suck and their websites should be taken down as they're clearly utter fascists. Because they don't have the same views as me.

*note: I'm not actually hypocritical as I can provide evidence to prove their fascist viewpoint, whereas they just shout "but he's evil!" and can't.

0
0
Silver badge
Grenade

Hurr!! Durrr!!!!

Political Vigilantes.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't like them. They are the same without fail, from whatever side they come.

0
0
Stop

"Bring Him Evidence He Can't Refute..."??!!

"Bring him evidence he can't refute..." David Irving has systematically defied such evidence for years.

Yes, he should be allowed to yell from the rooftops, just not during the night when others are trying to sleep.

Hitler not know about the Holocaust? "...the extermination of Jewry in Europe." 1939. According to German dictionaries, the word used, "ausrotten" can only mean the death of a living thing, nothing else.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ausrotten/

But to David Irving "exterminate" only means deportation, at least from 1936-45.

Irving is a dangerous nut, unfortunately he attracts more dangerous, uneducated nuts.

Leave his website alone, but don't let his message go unchallenged.

P.

0
0

Yeah it's wrong to hack someone's account...

...but part of me can't help but think that anything that makes the life of this grubby little fascist (he described himself as such) a bit harder can't be bad. Irving has made a nice little income from Holocaust denial.

As for free speech, that really is a tough one. After all Irving has variously claimed that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust, that the Allies faked the story, that there were no gas chambers, that there was no organised extermination and so on and on... His stories have been disproven in academic journals, books, papers, even in court and yet he still rattles round the far-right circuit spilling his venom. I can't begin to imagine how much distress he causes to survivors and relatives of the dead. But yes, he should be allowed to speak - and as soon as he steps over the line, then he should be dragged in front of a court and bankrupted all over again.

One thing that's easy to do would be to stop calling him a historian. Court judgements say he has faked and exaggerated his evidence. So perhaps the next time he turns up in print or on television they can just call him 'David Irving: Nazi fantasist'?

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

@AC ("Free Speech?")

"Yes, he's a pillock and spouts a load of crap but I thought we lived in a free democracy - he has the right to say what he likes surely?"

Welcome to the internet; there is no freedom here. The internet is a globally accessible communications medium. There may be a "free democracy" in the US (although even that is hotly debated—especially the "free" part), but Irving's websites are just as accessible from any other nation. Nations like Israel, Germany, Poland and Russia.

Even nations like the United Kingdom, which isn't even a democracy. (It's a "Constitutional Monarchy". At the last election, over 60% of the voters did NOT vote for New Labour. Guess who won?)

The US Constitution applies ONLY in the United States of America.

Europe's Charter of Fundamental Rights applies ONLY in the signatory nations.

There is no such thing as a global, worldwide constitution, nor is there a similar list of human rights. Complaining about the "immorality" of people who don't adhere to your own, parochial, worldview is merely an imposition of your own socio-cultural biases on the rest of the planet.

Newsflash: your country's laws do not apply to the entire universe. Neither do your cultural mores.

The Internet is not a country.

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

@ Sean Timarco Baggaley

",...nor is there a similar list of human rights."

Ahem...

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Remember where that comes from?

0
0
Thumb Down

freedom of speech?

In Europe, there is a small but substantial difference in the wording. You can have your freedom - only if it does not trample on someone else's. Guess what.

0
0

Gotta love idiots

Honestly they think there going to shut him up? If anything they just made him more known all around the globe and promoted his book for free. I've never heard of the guy till today and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Why can't idiots learn when they pull stunts like this conspiracy theorist/nuts just use it to justify their view because they feel people are trying to silence the truth from them. The easiest way to get rid of people like this is to ignore them completely not go publish all his info online...

0
0

It's all freedom innit?

Kind'a my hack is better than yours?

And if I can't do _my_ hack then I am not free.

Whatever, DSB can't afford good security then POH.

It is really hard to support the rights of the _malicious_ stupid people.

(The stupid, as a people, support us and pay us a living wage but . . .)

Damn, really do I have too support the stupid NAZIs of the world because of freedom?

Is this what PC means? That someone who is a walking Darwin Award has enough value that every damn bleeding heart out there says poor, poor baby?

I think FOAD really applies here.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Yes, Irving is a nutter

Just walk away, give him no heed, spare him no oxygen or avenue of regurgitation....

In time he and his ilk will disappear...or fade from the zeitgeist.

0
0
Gold badge
Troll

@Sean Timarco Baggaley

Interesting viewpoint, but what you are doing is making the case for national block lists. Making it well, I might add. You are correct in that the mores and codes of a given society are not legally enforceable beyond its borders. At the same time, some things are considered "simply too dangerous" by a given society. Granted some societies are more restrictive than others, but the only way then for any society to impose it's laws on content entering or leaving it is with a great big firewall.

I may have a personal opinion about "where the line is" or even "should our society censor content for the many in order to shield the few." I am sure most commenters here at El Reg not only have opinions, but long thought out and fervent ones.

Per your own argument, such firewalls and filters are the only way of a country imposing it's laws on content that is consumable within it's borders. What gets blocked, for what reasons and who controls the ability to do so are matters for the electorate to iron out with their governments, (or for Kings/Sultans/what-have-you to dictate to their subjects.)

This logic is of course full of holes, and really only designed to rile everyone up as only the concept of censorship around here can. The real meat of my argument, (and the purpose of my posting a comment in the first place) is this:

Your entire argument based on the belief that a given society or even a person has no “right” to try to impose it’s influence outside of it’s borders. Many societies are deeply steeped in the belief of their right and duty (divine or not) to “convert” the entire world.

Even without looking very hard, you can find extremists who believe in their right and duty to push their beliefs on others in every society or group you can name. Religious groups, Atheists, American imperialists, libertarians, the list goes on, and likely encompasses every society country and belief imaginable. (I have even encountered “extreme moderates” who believe we should all “chill the **** out” and it’s up to them to make us all understand it.)

It appears most of the planet is involved in various different types of cultural warfare at any given time. I don’t know any statistics off the top of my head, but I would guess planet wide more people believe it is their right and duty to impose their beliefs on someone else, (or the right/duty of their culture/society/religion/lack thereof,) than there are people who believe that noone and no group has that right. I could then make the argument that because the majority of people hold this belief that it is “more correct.”

Either argument is deeply flawed, and implies and involves a judgment of another’s belief system. I thusly challenge your belief that my country/society/religion/lack of religion/etc. has no innate “right” to try to force you to change what you believe.

Also note that nothing above in any way infers (or refers to) my own beliefs as regards anything. This entire commentwall is simply pure troll bait, with me hoping fervently that some of the more interesting and intelligent commenters will take up the challenge for my own personal entertainment.

If not, well…dinner just finished cooking anyways.

Cheers!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

So ...

It's alright to break the law cos he's a nutjob?

First they came for the anti-semites ...

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

@Sean

I don't think your post has much point. So what if the internet is not a country?

It is still legal for the guy to say whatever he wants as long as he is doing it from a country where it is legal. The guy did end up in jail when he got caught in Austria, but as long as he stays in the US, he can publish whatever he wants on the web.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Anti-facists more like Neo Night Watch

there is so much more going on in this world, that directly relates to torture, belief imprisonment and government sanctioned violence that going after someone just for his beliefs in the guise of being anti-fascist strikes me as incredibly disingenuous.

In fact, if Hitler were borne today he would probably be at the heart of the anti-fascist movement, they are very much acting like the fascists did with the Jews, Communists and Slavs, same techniques. And it is not just fascists who use these techniques, it is always the ones looking for totalitarian control, and is used by Communists, Zionists, most Governments, the BBC et al.

All forms of subjective hierarchy, which are enforced at the barrel of a gun are without virtue, those are the targets, not some wacky historian stuck in some bizarre glory days of the Third Frigging Reich. We have the Fourth Reich to contend with in our own time, and the number of good guys diminishes by the second, these anti-fascists just strike me as puppets for Fascists, Communists or some other extreme totalitarian masters, probably Labour voters.

0
0
FAIL

Firmly on our way to globalization and NWO

There is no "activist", the people that are behind this "hacking" into Irving's computer are well known "god chosen people", they do not care about any truth at all.

How about hacking into Bilderberg Group and exposing their emails and agendas?

Look what is on the mind of this "group" - "The kings tora" where it is said that yes 'it is ok to kill children that pose threat to Israel' even thought they are not able to do anything right now.

The true title of the book is missing the key name, or it was lost in translation, drum roll please ...

Moloch

It is Moloch's Tora.

Moloch - an ancient king that after enslaving the people would gather their children into huge bowls to cook them and feed that to his soldiers, his argument is that the older people make good slaves but younger ones will grow hating their enslavement and therefore they should be put to death.

Now West Bank Rabbi is bringing back this effective method into 21st century.

0
0
FAIL

@Sean Timarco Baggaley

"over 60% of the voters did NOT vote for New Labour. Guess who won?"

Yes, but in the 2000 US election, Al Gore got 500,000 more votes than George W Bush. Guess who won?

Both the UK and the US have electoral systems which allow a minority candidate to win. What's your point?

0
0
Coat

The trouble with free speech

The trouble with free speech is that it gives people like Irving and other Holocaust deniers the right to promote views that, if they came to power, would deny a whole raft of freedoms to others. That would include the right to call Irving a Holocaust denier*. So you could argue that some acts of civil disobedience are valid in the longer historical term, c.f. the fight for votes for women in the UK.

The right to free speech is not an absolute right - try getting on a plane in the US with the "wrong" kind of T-shirt - its something that's continually under debate in a living democracy.

I hope that sufficiently muddies the waters - mine's the one with the big spoon in the pocket.

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

0
0

internet law and Jurisdiction

It is interesting to note those who suggest his views are legal because he wrote them in the US or wherever. This seems at odds with the US insistance that Gary McKinnon is extradited for a crime he committed in another country. Seems to me that if you want your free speech and that upsets someone, they may take action. It may be illegal in their country, but i guess that doesnt matter to them if they can then get their point across.

There is a school of thought that suggests if you want to avoid a pot shot taking your head off, keep it below the parapet. Irving like the money his views generate, but if he is so brave, why hide your appointments from the world?

I am no condoner of illegal hacking, but neither do i like loudmouth yobs pretending to be intellectuals!

0
0
Gold badge
Thumb Down

Privacy and freedom of speech. Not just for people *you* like.

That's what makes them so difficult to really defend.

Some nasty types will use it to say things people don't like.

And someone (with the best of intentions) will say "lets shut them up." or these days "lets publish their private email and notes. They won't like it."

Quite right. They won't. Only in doing so you aling yourself with the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset.

The type who want ID cards, ANPR and CCTV eveywhere. For *your* safety of course.

You have some skills. Admit you are part of a faction. The greater good is a smokescreen you use to justify yourselves. Either take a side and be an honest opponent (your certainly not alone in that) or improve everyones privacy and security.

/rant

0
0

@ Steve Roper

Er, no.

Excuse my ignorance.

0
0
Headmaster

No, it's NOT all right to say what he wants.

He claims that the death camps were a fabrication of the armed forces.

That's libel, slander and whatever else you like, and most army personell takes a dim view of having their unit's reputation tarnished like that.

Then there's the survivors, or relatives of those who died in those camps.

I don't think they want their story called 'fantasy', either.

The icon... Not because of grammar, but because he's a ...

0
0

@Sean Timarco Baggaley

There's nothing about a Constitutional Monarchy that prevents it being a democracy. God help us if we adopt a pointless, written constitution that becomes out-of-date within a few decades and does nothing to aide democracy and everything to pad lawyers pockets.

I'm fully behind everything else you said though.

0
0
Paris Hilton

@AC 00:22

"We live in a highly technological society. Factually incorrect ideas should be pretty easy to root out."

Oh yeah, like birthers, creationists and all the other loons you gladly tolerate on your side of the great pond. Its not like those ideas are factually incorrect.

0
0

@Mudslinger

Shame on you. That's a direct quote from the Team America World Bill of Rights. You know, the one that says we're all equal, apart from slaves, women, and native Americans.

0
0

@Sean Timarco Baggaley

The internet is not a free for all and to say that, in essence, anything gose,is legaly and moraly wrong.

Yes, there is cross boarder jusidiction, but to justifie this attack baised on that kind of logic means that there are no laws. Irvine published what he published and stored his emails on US soil. He is therefor protected by US law. What you say makes no sense.

"There is no such thing as a global, worldwide constitution, nor is there a similar list of human rights." Yes there is. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. I sugest you look up international law at the same time.

"Even nations like the United Kingdom, which isn't even a democracy. (It's a "Constitutional Monarchy". At the last election, over 60% of the voters did NOT vote for New Labour. Guess who won?)" We do live in a democracy. Making "clever" comments about the way it works dose not make it less true. We do not live in a constitutional monarchy, it is a Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. We vote in free elections and the party with the majority share wins. We do not have a PR system, but that has problems of its own. I sugest you look up the electoral collage system the US use befor ranting futher. That is a system that in effect means that the electorat have no direct vote.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Do as you will

Shall be the whole of the law.

There really is no more to it than that. If you as an individual slavishly follow the "law" then you are no better than guards at those concentration camps Irving denies existed.

Throwing up "the law" as a reason to do or not do something is really the last refuge of the morally bankrupt.

I count the defacement of his website as valid political activism. Shame so many on here do not.

0
0

Hmm

As much as I have a dislike for the man, the point he is raising, that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust, whilst unlikely, is still readily debated by historians all over the World. All that this guy has done wrong is to hold a view that is unpopular and to show a lack of balance. A lot of people debate the issue but there is not much evidence either way so to show a clear conviction to either side is a bit silly.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Steve Roper

What, Lockes "life, liberty, property"? What's that got to do with anything?

0
0
Grenade

Despite drawbacks free speech considered worth it

These ``hacktivists'' are the electronic equivalent of mobs with all the usual stupidity that entails. Now the guy for all his despicable idiocy has a lot of free press to carry his ideas that much further. And worse, those of us who value free speech see themselves forced to defend him, for indeed ``I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it''.

Because the censorists will take this up to call for (more) blocking and filtering, pointing at the filth and saying ``see? tole you so!'' I say ``So what? You're still free to ignore him.''

Personally I think that a strong, healthy social fabric underpinning a thriving society needs no government meddling to ``protect'' it from speech deemed ``simply too dangerous''. It means enough people are educated and mature enough to show those not there yet the errors of their ways. Recall that justice is the prerogative of the {king,state} to prevent mob rule, not because it inherently knows better; why else would it provide you a jury of your peers?

By that logic, calls for censorship and government nannying means admission of failure to grow up.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

At the freespeach commentards

Here in Europe we have laws against facists, facist propaganda, and deniers.

There is no right to free speach as you have it.

The guy is a hate monger and is trying to distort history for his own ends.

Personally I think Germany should put his arse in prison for good.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

We should all be equal under the law

Irving is an obnoxious nutter, but he has the same rights to privacy and freedom of speech as the rest of us.

It's somtimes justifiable to break a law for the greater good, especially if you are willing to publicise having done so and take the legal consequences as a form of protest. Does this apply here? Doesn't look like it. If they'd found a smoking-gun e-mail which made it clear that he doesn't actually believe what he's preaching, that would be different. Having not found any such, they should have quietly gone away.

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Today, "they" - western governments - have designs to record all our e-mails and phone calls. If these "hacktivists" are not roundly condemned for their actions regardless of the nature of their target, it plays right into these governments' hands. It'll be your e-mails next, and then other hard fought-for freedoms. And that is the slippery slope to the sort of government that only an Irving could want.

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

votes..

"At the last election, over 60% of the voters did NOT vote for New Labour. Guess who won"

My premise is that if you dont vote you are quite happy to accept the outcome.

So If you didnt vote...you voted for the winners.

that makes it 20% voted againt the cuurrent goverment.

0
0
Bronze badge

No right to free speech

There is no right to free speech without limit anywhere, only inside one's own head - and even that isn't safe as vetting databases increasingly expose thought through circumstantial links to one's chosen reading and viewing material and associations.

When there's no unlimited right to free speech which may be hate filled, hurtful, inciting or harming the central issues are where the line is and what rights and means do others have to oppose it when the line is crossed. Just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean it is actually wrong, equally, just because something is legal does not mean it is right.

When protected free speech becomes the right to hate, hurt and incite what rights should those who oppose have, and why should that opposition only be limited to the mechanics of speech in return ?

0
0
WTF?

@ AC 10:49

Condescending much?

0
0
WTF?

Hypocrisy

Seems to me the anti-fascists are more fascist than those they oppose.

Breaking the law to forcefully suppress the views of others is definitely fascism in my book.

0
0
FAIL

Rights

"Sean" et al don't really seem to understand the basic concept of a human right.

Rights are NOT given

Rights are NOT granted

Rights are NOT agreed to

MY rights belong to ME and to ME alone.

I OWN them, they belong to ME - I do NOT ask for them - I just TAKE them as they are NOT YOURS to offer me.

Laws are nothing more than standards of behaviour that a society agrees apon, they are not in any way "right" or "wrong" and they cannot grant or remove my "right" to something that that society doesn't own in the first place.

I am a free born human with fundimental rights - not because society has seen fit to grant me those rights, but because I own them - they belong to me, and therefore I both demand them and take them.

0
0
WTF?

I'm a moderate libertarian...

... and I really couldn't give a flying fuck what David Irving thinks, posts or says. Let him get on with his life, and I'll get on with mine. How's that for freedom of speech/though/expression.

0
0

@JB

You have the right to listen, and to think for yourself, you do not have the right to stop others from speaking, or thinking whatever they want to think.

1
0
FAIL

@Trevor Pott

"extremists who believe in their right and duty to push their beliefs on others in every society or group you can name. Religious groups, Atheists,"

Nice try, but by definition, atheists aren't believers; and therefore don't have a "belief" to pawn off on others.

0
0
FAIL

@A:C 18:22 GMT

Trying to make a point by switching meanings of a word mid-sentence is something I'd like to see left in third grade. Even then most of us were too smart for it, but at least it could've been considered a nice try.

Atheists don't have a belief or belief system in the religious sense of the word (arguably), they do have a shared belief in the much more common sense of the word: they hold an idea ("there is no god") to be true. I would venture that unless they're very boring people they hold many ideas to be true, but by definition as an atheist you at least have that one.

As for this story, I condone what neither group did, and it seems like these pricks deserve one another.

Mine's the one with apolitical agnostic written on it. Everyone else's seem to be the ass hat.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

@Neil Stansbury:

You really don't get it do you?

(With apologies to Mr. Pratchett.) Take the universe. Squeeze it up. Wring it as tight as you can and I *guarantee* you will find not one atom of "justice", "humanity"—whatever the f*ck that is—or "freedom". There is no such thing as an "innate" or natural "human right". Such a concept does not exist beyond the bounds of human mind. It's a wholly artificial concept.

The only "rights" you have are those mutually agreed upon by the society in which you live. Merely writing some words down on some paper does NOT make them a universal truth. (Just ask any Bible-thumper what he thinks of the Qu'ran if you don't believe me.)

Just as Statesiders believe that there is an innate right to "freedom of speech", or to "bear arms", so there are societies on this world who believe that THEY have a *right* to live according to the laws set out by some deity they happen to believe in. Why is YOUR definition inherently superior to theirs? Who made YOU god?

If you want the entire population of Homo Sapiens to agree that there is a "right" to freedom of speech, I suggest you get to work building a strong world government. Until you do so, you're no better than those other idiots with the beards and comedy accents.

0
0
Troll

@AC 18:22GMT

Begging your pardon, but to cite deifnition of "Atheism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism]: 'Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods"'.

0
0
Gold badge
Pint

@Anonymous Coward 18:22

My personal experience has shown more atheists than religious believers to be dogmatic about imposing their viewpoint on others. ("Converting them" for lack of a better term.) Whether you are forcing someone to believe all religion is false, or you are attempting to force someone to believe that a particular religion is true, it is still an imposition of will.

An atheist can no more prove there is not a god than a religious believer can prove there is one. At the end of the day either viewpoint relies on belief in something that can not be absolutely proven.

While I understand and accept that telling an atheist their lack of belief in any form of religion is itself a belief ruffles certain feathers, the issue at hand was the imposition of a personal belief system and moral code on another. Attempting to impose one's "lack of belief" on another is the same as attempting to impose a sense of belief on another.

Unless of course, you're a true believer in atheism...then nothing matters except that you believe you are right, and the rights and opinions of those you believe are "wrong" don't matter.

Carry on then...

0
0

Er, PMFB, but...

...Godwin.

0
0

Who is the terrorist here?

If a message has no validity than there are no followers. If you don't like the channel, change it.

We don't need web police... no matter how silly or corrupt the message it's not the task of self proclaimed web messiahs to save us. These are nothing more than terrorists.

0
0
Bronze badge

@Who is the terrorist here?

> If a message has no validity than there are no followers

You've never met any God-botherers (to cite one among *many* delusional beliefs), I take it? Unfortunately people prefer to believe things they want to believe, the evidence (or lack thereof) be damned.

> If you don't like the channel, change it.

Ah, "consumer choice" ... the pinnacle of western Democracy! Shame about the attention span.

> ... messiahs ... nothing more than terrorists.

You should probably learn to save hyperbole for when you really need it...

0
0
Thumb Down

Disgusting. And infuriating.

Leave the man alone. His ideas can stand or fall (and it looks like they've mostly fallen) on their own merits. The Internet is a free market of ideas and information, and it works.

And I love, just absolutely love, how "anti-"fascists use criminal acts, intimidation, and violence to shut up people they don't agree with. Gee, who does that sound like? Oh well, good that they're around to protect we stupid commoners from untruths. Not like any of us know how to Google.

Seriously, God help the human race if these sh-tty litle thugs are its defenders of liberty.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.