Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 09:32 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
Today at 02:57 PM

Islam and Science Fiction
by zeca
February 09, 2025, 11:06 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 07, 2025, 01:11 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book

 (Read 4965 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     OP - August 13, 2009, 07:00 PM


    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=1

    Quote
    By PATRICIA COHEN
    Published: August 12, 2009

    It?s not all that surprising that Yale University Press would be wary of reprinting notoriously controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a forthcoming book. After all, when the 12 caricatures were first published by a Danish newspaper a few years ago and reprinted by other European publications, Muslims all over the world angrily protested, calling the images ? which included one in which Muhammad wore a turban in the shape of a bomb ? blasphemous. In the Middle East and Africa some rioted, burning and vandalizing embassies; others demanded a boycott of Danish goods; a few nations recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. In the end at least 200 people were killed.

    So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, ?The Cartoons That Shook the World,? should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What?s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children?s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Dor? of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante?s ?Inferno? that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dal?.

    The book?s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press?s decision not to publish the cartoons. But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that ?Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.? The book is due out in November.

    John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was ?overwhelming and unanimous.? The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

    He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books ? like ?The King Never Smiles? by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand?s current monarch ? and ?I?ve never blinked.? But, he said, ?when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.?

    Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of ?No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,? is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is ?a definitive account of the entire controversy,? he said, ?but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.?

    In Mr. Aslan?s view no danger remains. ?The controversy has died out now, anyone who wants to see them can see them,? he said of the cartoons, noting that he has written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction. He added that none of the violence occurred in the United States: ?There were people who were annoyed, and what kind of publishing house doesn?t publish something that annoys some people??

    ?This is an academic book for an academic audience by an academic press,? he continued. ?There is no chance of this book having a global audience, let alone causing a global outcry.? He added, ?It?s not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary.?

    Mr. Donatich said that the images were still provoking unrest as recently as last year when the Danish police arrested three men suspected of trying to kill the artist who drew the cartoon depicting Muhammad?s turban as a bomb. He quoted one of the experts consulted by Yale ? Ibrahim Gambari, special adviser to the secretary general of the United Nations and the former foreign minister of Nigeria ? as concluding: ?You can count on violence if any illustration of the prophet is published. It will cause riots, I predict, from Indonesia to Nigeria.?

    Aside from the disagreement about the images, Ms. Klausen said she was also disturbed by Yale?s insistence that she could read a 14-page summary of the consultants? recommendations only if she signed a confidentiality agreement that forbade her from talking about them. ?I perceive it to be a gag order,? she said, after declining to sign. While she could understand why some of the individuals consulted might prefer to remain unidentified, she said, she did not see why she should be precluded from talking about their conclusions.

    Linda Koch Lorimer, vice president and secretary of Yale University, who had discussed the summary with Ms. Klausen, said on Wednesday that she was merely following the original wishes of the consultants, some of whom subsequently agreed to be identified.

    Ms. Klausen, who is also the author of ?The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe,? argued that the cartoon protests were not spontaneous but rather orchestrated demonstrations by extremists in Denmark and Egypt who were trying to influence elections there and by others hoping to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya and Nigeria. The cartoons, she maintained, were a pretext, a way to mobilize dissent in the Muslim world.

    Although many Muslims believe the Koran prohibits images of the prophet, Muhammad has been depicted through the centuries in both Islamic and Western art without inciting disturbances.

    Rather than sign a joint editor?s note for the book and the removal of the images, Ms. Klausen has requested instead that a statement from her be included. ?I agreed,? she said, ?to the press?s decision to not print the cartoons and other hitherto uncontroversial illustrations featuring images of the Muslim prophet, with sadness. But I also never intended the book to become another demonstration for or against the cartoons, and hope the book can still serve its intended purpose without illustrations.?

    Other publishers, including The New York Times, chose not to print the cartoons or images of Muhammad when the controversy erupted worldwide in February 2006.

    Ms. Klausen said, ?I can understand that a university is risk averse, and they will make that choice? not to publish the cartoons, but Yale University Press, she added, went too far in taking out the other images of Muhammad.

    ?The book?s message,? Ms. Klausen said, ?is that we need to calm down and look at this carefully.?


    Do you think the expert were right ?

    Like a compass needle that points north, a man?s accusing finger always finds a woman. Always.

    Khaled Hosseini - A thousand splendid suns.
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #1 - August 13, 2009, 11:09 PM

    Wow, Muslims are seriously an oversensitive lot!

    Anyone got a link to the pictures?


    We keep hearing about how Jack Straw or the French government have mentioned the veil and our doing so puts us in the same boat as them. How so? I want a ban on the burka, neqab and child veiling.

    you can either defend women or you must defend Islam. You can’t defend both

    - Maryam Namaze
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #2 - August 13, 2009, 11:14 PM

    Muslims are very sensitive ex-hindu. That is why so many of them in Arab and Asian countries have man sex.

    Take the Pakman challenge and convince me there is a God and Mo was not a murdering, power hungry sex maniac.
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #3 - August 13, 2009, 11:43 PM

    Ewwww...

    Man sex with a Muslim ...

    Ewwwwww!!!

    Must get a tatoo on my butt that says 'No entry for Muslims'.

    *Pukes at the thought of Muslim man sex*.

    We keep hearing about how Jack Straw or the French government have mentioned the veil and our doing so puts us in the same boat as them. How so? I want a ban on the burka, neqab and child veiling.

    you can either defend women or you must defend Islam. You can’t defend both

    - Maryam Namaze
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #4 - August 13, 2009, 11:55 PM

    Wow, Muslims are seriously an oversensitive lot!


    Well, I am not certain, but this doesn't sound like anyone protested, the publisher itself thought about removing the pictures and then "consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism".

    Uhm. Maybe, they should just have published them and see what happens. These images have been published in numerous papers and books.
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #5 - August 21, 2009, 10:04 AM


    Christopher Hitchens comments on the ban :

    http://www.slate.com/id/2225504/

    Quote
    Yale Surrenders
    Why did Yale University Press remove images of Mohammed from a book about the Danish cartoons?
    By Christopher Hitchens
    Posted Monday, Aug. 17, 2009, at 5:04 PM ET

    The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn't even been made yet is the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism?particularly Muslim religious extremism?that is spreading across our culture. A book called The Cartoons That Shook the World, by Danish-born Jytte Klausen, who is a professor of politics at Brandeis University, tells the story of the lurid and preplanned campaign of "protest" and boycott that was orchestrated in late 2005 after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran a competition for cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. (The competition was itself a response to the sudden refusal of a Danish publisher to release a book for children about the life of Mohammed, lest it, too, give offense.) By the time the hysteria had been called off by those who incited it, perhaps as many as 200 people around the world had been pointlessly killed.
    Yale University Press announced last week that it would go ahead with the publication of the book, but it would remove from it the 12 caricatures that originated the controversy. Not content with this, it is also removing other historic illustrations of the likeness of the Prophet, including one by Gustave Dor? of the passage in Dante's Inferno that shows Mohammed being disemboweled in hell. (These same Dantean stanzas have also been depicted by William Blake, Sandro Botticelli, Salvador Dal?, and Auguste Rodin, so there's a lot of artistic censorship in our future if this sort of thing is allowed to set a precedent.)


    Now, the original intention of limiting the representation of Mohammed by Muslims (and Islamic fatwas, before we forget, have no force whatever when applied to people outside the faith) was the rather admirable one of preventing idolatry. It was feared that people might start to worship the man and not the god of whom he was believed to be the messenger. This is why it is crass to refer to Muslims as Mohammedans. Nonetheless, Islamic art contains many examples?especially in Iran?of paintings of the Prophet, and even though the Dante example is really quite an upsetting one, exemplifying a sort of Christian sadism and sectarianism, there has never been any Muslim protest about its pictorial representation in Western art.

    If that ever changes, which one can easily imagine it doing, then Yale has already made the argument that gallery directors may use to justify taking down the pictures and locking them away. According to Yale logic, violence could result from the showing of the images?and not only that, but it would be those who displayed the images who were directly responsible for that violence.

    Let me illustrate: The Aug. 13 New York Times carried a report of the university press' surrender, which quoted its director, John Donatich, as saying that in general he has "never blinked" in the face of controversy, but "when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question."

    Donatich is a friend of mine and was once my publisher, so I wrote to him and asked how, if someone blew up a bookshop for carrying professor Klausen's book, the blood would be on the publisher's hands rather than those of the bomber. His reply took the form of the official statement from the press's public affairs department. This informed me that Yale had consulted a range of experts before making its decision and that "[a]ll confirmed that the republication of the cartoons by the Yale University Press ran a serious risk of instigating violence."

    So here's another depressing thing: Neither the "experts in the intelligence, national security, law enforcement, and diplomatic fields, as well as leading scholars in Islamic studies and Middle East studies" who were allegedly consulted, nor the spokespeople for the press of one of our leading universities, understand the meaning of the plain and common and useful word instigate. If you instigate something, it means that you wish and intend it to happen. If it's a riot, then by instigating it, you have yourself fomented it. If it's a murder, then by instigating it, you have yourself colluded in it. There is no other usage given for the word in any dictionary, with the possible exception of the word provoke, which does have a passive connotation. After all, there are people who argue that women who won't wear the veil have "provoked" those who rape or disfigure them ? and now Yale has adopted that "logic" as its own.

    It was bad enough during the original controversy, when most of the news media?and in the age of "the image" at that?refused to show the cartoons out of simple fear. But now the rot has gone a serious degree further into the fabric. Now we have to say that the mayhem we fear is also our fault, if not indeed our direct responsibility. This is the worst sort of masochism, and it involves inverting the honest meaning of our language as well as what might hitherto have been thought of as our concept of moral responsibility.

    Last time this happened, I linked to the Danish cartoons so that you could make up your own minds about them, and I do the same today. Nothing happened last time, but who's to say what homicidal theocrat might decide to take offense now. I deny absolutely that I will have instigated him to do so, and I state in advance that he is directly and solely responsible for any blood that is on any hands. He becomes the responsibility of our police and security agencies, who operate in defense of a Constitution that we would not possess if we had not been willing to spill blood?our own and that of others?to attain it. The First Amendment to that Constitution prohibits any prior restraint on the freedom of the press. What a cause of shame that the campus of Nathan Hale should have pre-emptively run up the white flag and then cringingly taken the blood guilt of potential assassins and tyrants upon itself.

     


    Like a compass needle that points north, a man?s accusing finger always finds a woman. Always.

    Khaled Hosseini - A thousand splendid suns.
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #6 - August 21, 2009, 10:17 AM

    A very good article.
    I totally agree with Christopher Hitchens.
    Z
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #7 - August 23, 2009, 01:41 AM

    I always wanted to see these controversial pictures, anyone have a link for them? considering how many people died and rioted over it ugh, it makes me sick

    Closets after closets
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #8 - August 23, 2009, 02:03 AM

    enjoy

    http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #9 - August 23, 2009, 02:09 AM

    Hm ... :/

    What was the point of them? What were they supposed to achieve?

    Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence

  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #10 - August 23, 2009, 02:12 AM

    The one with the martyr's being told to slow down because "we've run out of virgins" is my favourite.

    Hm ... :/

    What was the point of them? What were they supposed to achieve?



    Nothing.  They are cartoons, they are not supposed to achieve anything. 

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #11 - August 23, 2009, 02:55 AM

    Hm ... :/

    What was the point of them? What were they supposed to achieve?



    It's creative expression. Whether we like it or not, whether we think it has a worthy purpose or not, it's just art. Art exists for art's sake. But of course creativity and artistic expression are not allowed in Islam. Especially anything even remotely "blasphemous".

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #12 - August 23, 2009, 02:57 AM

    It's creative expression. Whether we like it or not, whether we think it has a worthy purpose or not, it's just art. Art exists for art's sake. But of course creativity and artistic expression are not allowed in Islam. Especially anything even remotely "blasphemous".


    I did not suggest banning anything, it is their right to draw however many stupid cartoons they wish.

    I just think it is distasteful and pointless.

    Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence

  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #13 - August 23, 2009, 03:14 AM

    I did not suggest banning anything, it is their right to draw however many stupid cartoons they wish.

    I just think it is distasteful and pointless.


    That's fine... it's not my favorite kind of art either. But there are literally millions of cartoons out there and most of them are distasteful to one party or another. There are countless cartoons that make fun of obama, cheney, jesus, moses, gordon brown, bush, dawkins, everyone and every idea and every group out there. But the only ones who go killing people and blowing up embassies over a bunch of stupid cartoons are religious Muslims.  Roll Eyes

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #14 - August 23, 2009, 07:23 AM

    Nothing.  They are cartoons, they are not supposed to achieve anything.  

    Well according to the journalists at Jyllands-Posten there was an issue with self-censorship that was expected of media in general regarding this sort of issues, so they decided to test the boundaries. And boy did they make a point.

    I just think it is distasteful and pointless.

    The distastefulness is a matter of opinion and taste, as far as the point of this goes, well the problem is whether certain religio-cultural groups are entitled to being excluded from criticism and examination because of their self-imposed taboos.

    BTW I would be grateful if you could elaborate why exactly you find the cartoons "distasteful and pointless". Thanks.
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #15 - August 23, 2009, 09:10 AM

    Well, I am not certain, but this doesn't sound like anyone protested,...

    Well that?s self-censorship at its purest. They pre-empted what in their opinion is going to be the reaction and acted accordingly. The worst thing is that this is considered to be the "respectful" thing to do. But when one drops the PC mask what one gets is essentially this: We know that Muslims are a bunch of bronze-age simpletons and cannot take any criticism. Therefore we must "respect" them and avoid hurting their sensibilities. Otherwise we all know what will happen.

    How about submitting Islam and all other religions to a respectful but for that reason exactly no less ruthless and critical analysis. This would be a way to show true respect for Muslims, to treat them as serous adults who are responsible for their beliefs.

  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #16 - August 29, 2009, 10:25 AM


    http://www.monaeltahawy.com/blog/

    Quote
    Yale?s Misguided Retreat
    Friday, August 28th, 2009
    By Mona Eltahawy

    The Washington Post

    In deciding to omit the images from a book it is publishing about the controversy sparked by Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, Yale University Press has handed a victory to extremists. Both Yale and the extremists distorting this issue should be ashamed. I say this as a Muslim who supported the Danish newspaper

    Jyllands-Posten?s right to publish the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in late 2005 and as someone who also understands the offense taken at those cartoons by many Muslims, including my mother. After a while, she and I agreed to stop talking about them because the subject always made us argue.

    For more than two months in 2006, I lived in Copenhagen, where I debated the issue with Danes ? Muslim and non-Muslim ? including Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the images, and Naser Khader, Denmark?s first Muslim parliamentarian, who launched the liberal Democratic Muslims group just as the controversy unfolded.

    Speaking at a conference that Khader hosted at the Danish parliament a year after the cartoons? publication, I warned of two right wings ? a non-Muslim one that hijacked the issue to fuel racism against immigrants in Denmark, and a Muslim one that hijacked the issue to silence Muslims and fuel anti-Western rhetoric.

    Sadly, both groups are celebrating Yale?s decision because it has proven them ?right.?

    The controversy that many might recall as ?Danish newspaper publishes cartoons of the prophet; Muslim world goes berserk? was actually much more complex. What occurred across many Muslim-majority countries in 2006 was a clear exercise in manufacturing outrage. Consider:

    Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons in September 2005. The widespread protests in majority-Muslim countries that eventually left more than 200 dead did not start until about four months later. Indeed, when an Egyptian newspaper reprinted one cartoon in October 2005 to show readers how a Danish newspaper was portraying the prophet, no backlash was heard in Cairo or elsewhere.

    Jytte Klausen, the Danish-born author of the Yale Press?s forthcoming book, ?Cartoons That Shook the World,? recognizes that lag. According to Yale Press?s Web site, she argues that Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not spontaneous but, rather, that it was orchestrated ?first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria.?

    I?m perplexed why Klausen agreed ? even ?reluctantly? ? to Yale?s decision to pull the cartoons. Ironically, she told the Guardian that she wanted to publish the cartoons to make the case ?that some of them are Islamophobic, and in the tradition of anti-Semitism? ? the latter a view that would hardly inflame many Muslims.

    Yale also cut from the book images of the prophet meant to illustrate the history of the depiction of Muhammad in Ottoman, Persian and Western art. Sunni Muslims observe a prohibition on depictions of the prophet ? but since when has Yale? It says it pulled the images on advice from Islamic and counterterrorism experts that they could incite violence, but at least one author and expert on Islam, Reza Aslan, has criticized the move as ?idiotic? (he also retracted a blurb he had written in support of the book).

    The cowardice shown by Yale Press recognizes none of the nuance that filled my conversations in Copenhagen nor discussions I had with Muslims in Qatar and Egypt during the controversy. Many told me they were dismayed at the double standards that stoked rage at these Danish cartoons yet did not question silence at anti-Semitic and racist cartoons in the region?s media.

    Does Yale realize that it has proven what Flemming Rose said was his original intent in commissioning the cartoons ? that artists were self-censoring out of fear of Muslim radicals?

    Yale has sided with the various Muslim dictators and radical groups that used the cartoons to ?prove? who could best ?defend? Muhammad against the Danes and, by extension, burnish their Islamic credentials. Those same dictators and radicals who complained of the offense to the prophet?s memory were blind to the greater offense they committed in their disregard for human life. (Indeed, some of those protesters even held banners that said, ?Behead those who offend the prophet.?)

    When a group of Danish imams flew to the Middle East in late 2005 with ?offending images? of the prophet ? some cartoons from the controversy and other images taken from the Web sites of extremist groups ? the timing was ripe for the bandwagon of outrage to roll: The Muslim Brotherhood had become the largest opposition group in the Egyptian parliament. In January 2006, Hamas had just won the Palestinian elections.

    One by one, regimes and Islamists competed in outrage, whipping up a frenzy that at times spiraled out of control.

    Unfortunately, those dictators and radicals who want to speak for all Muslims ? and yet care little for Muslim life ? have found an ally in Yale University Press.


    Like a compass needle that points north, a man?s accusing finger always finds a woman. Always.

    Khaled Hosseini - A thousand splendid suns.
  • Re: Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
     Reply #17 - September 01, 2009, 08:55 PM

    Mona Elthahawy got death threat because of the above article

    http://www.monaeltahawy.com/blog/?p=154
     
    Quote
    Monday, August 31st, 2009
    I got my first death threat.

    When the Washington Post published my column on Yale University Press and the Danish cartoons, I expected strong reactions and I got them. But then an Egyptian portal called Masrawy.com cherry picked two or three paragraphs from it, said AIPAC the Jewish lobby shared my position and set the attack dogs on me. The comments section became filled with hate and threats against me and someone wrote me an email telling me he?d kill me.

    I reported it to the authorities who traced the email back to Giza, Egypt, and who are looking into the Masrawy.com article which incited the message.

    Oh the irony - I get a death threat from a fellow Muslim angry at Muslims being stereotyped as violent!

    Here?s the email:




    From: ahmed saad [mailto:ahmedsaad002010@yahoo.com]
    Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:36 AM
    To: info@monaeltahawy.com
    Subject: الاسلام برئ منكي
     
     

    مش احنا ارهابيين
    انا لو شوفتك ماشيه في اي شارع
    هقتلك
    i will kill you
     

    (Subject: Islam wants nothing to do with you.

    Body of message: We aren?t terrorists If I see you walking along any street I will kill you

    Or: Aren?t we terrorists? Well then, if I see you walking along any street, I will kill you.

    I?ve provided the slightly different possible translations but the meaning is the same.

    As unsettling as it is to hear someone say they will kill you, I think it?s just an angry person who (hopefully) will not follow through. I?m sharing it here however because it?s important for me to show the hate and violence that some people too easily hurl when they don?t like an opinion.


    Like a compass needle that points north, a man?s accusing finger always finds a woman. Always.

    Khaled Hosseini - A thousand splendid suns.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »