Emerson on Key’s hypocrisy

72 comments on “Emerson on Key’s hypocrisy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Paul 1

   15 January 2015 at 8:27 am

   Pity the paper he works for does not follow the same editorial line and grovels at Key’s feet.
   • Tracey 1.1

     15 January 2015 at 8:52 am

     BUT they do keep publishing his cartoons. perhaps to make themselves feel better about the rest of their advertorials?
     • Paul 1.1.1

       15 January 2015 at 8:55 am

       They fired their last cartoonist when he refused to toe the line about Israel.
       Morrissey highlighted this yesterday.
       • Tracey 1.1.1.1

         15 January 2015 at 9:07 am

         I read that but they didn’t replace him with a total patsy… perhaps Emmerson doesnt do Israel but he pegs this government regularly.

         It makes me wonder if the Left wouldnt do better using yooung graphic artists in their next campaign, teamed up with seasoned cartoonists to get their message across. Cartoons appeal visually and to the written word, are succinct and only take a moment…

         a comic book style policy manifesto

         ‘)
         • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1

           15 January 2015 at 9:27 am

           The earnest graphic representation of the marriage between principle and pragmatism. Sounds expensive.

           Fertile ground for comedy, too 😈
           • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1.1

             15 January 2015 at 10:21 am

             would make great billboards tooooooooo

             pithy cartoons…

             might not be expensive if the people involved donate their skills and they will ONLY do that if they feel their principles align with the partiesssssssss…
         • Wonderpup 1.1.1.1.2

           15 January 2015 at 9:32 am

           Someone could commission a cartoon competition with an appropriate theme – open to everyone. I’m sure we could get a judging panel of humour-positive people from each party. The Italians have one every year. Would the Standard be interested in hosting it? Maybe Gareth Morgan and Bob Jones could contribute to a cash prize….
           • Tracey 1.1.1.1.2.1

             15 January 2015 at 10:21 am

             Do you have a link to the info about the Italian one or shall I google?
             • Wonderpup …

               15 January 2015 at 11:22 am

               Its here: its more about humorous art, than cartoons specifically.

               http://www.biennaleumorismo.it/

               [edited with better link]
         • Westiechick 1.1.1.1.3

           15 January 2015 at 4:31 pm

           Genius idea Tracey – we should have thought of it at election time and gotten the bro-town animator (another westie) to do some cartoons for the PI yoof we tried to reach. Bring on 2017.
           • Tracey 1.1.1.1.3.1

             15 January 2015 at 5:06 pm

             we could crowd-fund a competion here at the standard to raise winning prize/s…

             copyright passes to thestandard to do as they please (with attribution), then we could say what “message” or topic we want them to cover?
     • JanM 1.1.2

       15 January 2015 at 9:35 am

       Shakespeare’s fool?
2. Dorothy 2

   15 January 2015 at 8:42 am

   Brilliant !
3. Bea Brown 3

   15 January 2015 at 9:53 am

   But isn’t there a bit of a difference?
   Do we all need just to suck up having a private conversation recorded and published?
   Or our emails and texts stolen and published?
   Without being an apologist for the Prime Minister or bloggers, I think Bradley Ambrose and Nicky Hagar undermined our right to privacy, a right that extends to everyone great and small in NZ, surely.
   Of course there’s a legitimate space for whistle blowing and leaks, but our political views (and nosiness!) shouldn’t lead us into defending illegitimate means to an end.
   I think Emerson got this one very wrong and it is a bit unsavoury having journalists like Andrea Vance squeal when their disreputable tactics are exposed and then adopt this holier-than-thou posture.
   • Jeeves 3.1

     15 January 2015 at 10:03 am

     Can you explain how you think Nicky Hager undermined our right to privacy?
     • Tracey 3.1.1

       15 January 2015 at 10:32 am

       No she can’t and probably won’t. Her M.O is to drop by every now and then, write something that cannot be proven but fits nicely with the very stuff Hager wrote about and then disappears. If you search her name, her prior posts will bear this out. “She” is a trole. Spends time doing the same thing in comments sections of herald.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1

         15 January 2015 at 10:50 am

         A poison pen if ever there was one.
   • Tracey 3.2

     15 January 2015 at 10:28 am

     You are a broken record Bea. You sound more concerned than your previous posts, yet you didnt protest increased invasions of our privacy and voted for parties proposing it. You are absolutely an apologist for Key and “bloggers” (Cameron Slater paradoxically given your asserted high morality) judging from all your prior posts, or have you had an epiphany that isn’t obvious from this post? I cant be bothered linking to your prior apologist posts but they are there for those who care to do so.

     Hager stole NOTHING. He published nothing of a personal nature (unlike Ministers Collins and Bennett and blogger Slater) just information relating to collusion between the PM’s office and Slater (which resulted in Mr Ede’s resignation – why if he hadnt done anything wrong I wonder), campaigns of lying and smearing to undermine journalists and politicians, to sway party selections and to allow lobbyists to attack those speaking out against certain government policies while pretending to be written by Cameron Slater. A MP who when told of stolen police evidence laughed and did nothing, went on to be Minister of Police and Justice.

     Please provide your evidence of disreputable tactics by Andrea Vance or have the decency to withdraw your allegation.

     I did a search on your username and “Judith Collins” and “Paula Bennett” and couldn’t find your condemnation of their releasing private and personal information of people they didnt like for nothing but personal political purposes. Collins allowed the very public vilification and smearing of an innocent public servant, and Ms Collins released personal details of a person legitimately receiving public support, because that person had the audacity to challenge her.
     • tc 3.2.1

       15 January 2015 at 10:36 am

       The fact Collins is still an MP let alone likely to be a minister again after what’s in hagers book speaks volumes about Shonkeys gov’t and an MSM playing along.
       • Bearded Git 3.2.1.1

         15 January 2015 at 10:57 am

         +1 tc
   • tc 3.3

     15 January 2015 at 10:33 am

     ” I think Bradley Ambrose and Nicky Hagar undermined our right to privacy..”

     That’s the funniest line in your very trolesome offering.
   • Paul 3.4

     15 January 2015 at 10:45 am

     Clearly you will defend the neoliberal religion at all costs.
     • Lloyd 3.4.1

       15 January 2015 at 8:20 pm

       “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels
       It is not a neo-liberal concept, it is a far-right concept.
   • North 3.5

     15 January 2015 at 10:57 am

     “Without being an apologist for the Prime Minister……”

     Oh really Bea Brown @ 3 ?

     Your inventing a right to privacy around the engineered and smirkingly flaunted over-the- teacups between Key and Banks and your conflating this with “our” right to privacy is to blather out of existence the voters’ right to know the substance of that strutting circus.

     I mean it wasn’t a matter of two no longer powerful gentlemen whisperingly discussing erectile dysfunction, was it ? It was a discussion which both had signalled had vital consequence in the dynamics of the 2014 supposedly democratic election.

     Then to invoke “holier-than-thou” as you do acquits you as nothing less than an avowed apologist for a gauche hypocrite……seemingly your chosen if not irresistible state of mind.

     ” Je suis Emmerson……” on this one. The risible disingenuity of your claim – “Without being an apologist for the Prime Minister……” – only heightens “Je suis JohnKey……pour toujours !” Fine, as long as you don’t denigrate Emmerson’s right to such ‘on-the-button’ freedom of expression by shoving it through your ridiculous right/wrong filter. Seems like its the ‘on-the-button-ness’ of it that’s causing you pain.
   • Paul 3.6

     15 January 2015 at 11:22 am

     Just as a matter of interest, just name 3 things you disagree with John Key about.
     Just want a get a handle on your levels of devoted ness.

     Clearly attacking the media is not one of those.
   • Stephanie Rodgers 3.7

     15 January 2015 at 11:24 am

     Do we all need just to suck up having a private conversation recorded and published?

     So very, very private.
     http://www.listener.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/121111NZLDWKEY031.jpg
   • framu 3.8

     15 January 2015 at 12:15 pm

     ” I think Bradley Ambrose and Nicky Hagar undermined our right to privacy, a right that extends to everyone great and small in NZ, surely.
     Of course there’s a legitimate space for whistle blowing and leaks, but our political views (and nosiness!) shouldn’t lead us into defending illegitimate means to an end.”

     contradictory idiocy
   • Naturesong 3.9

     15 January 2015 at 12:45 pm

     Can you explain what illegitimate means were used by either Bradley Ambrose or Nicky Hager ?
     • Tracey 3.9.1

       15 January 2015 at 12:53 pm

       Bea doesn’t like them = illegitimate means.

       Some of it is explained here

       http://edge.org/conversation/a-new-science-of-morality-part-6
   • Truth Will Out 3.10

     15 January 2015 at 12:53 pm

     @Bea Brown:

     That Nicky Hagar did what he did because of his political views is your opinion, and speaks more about your political views than his.

     Your argument essentially suggests we should all accept the lesser of two evils, which assumes that evil is necessary in the first place.

     As a New Zealander who wants abuses of political power and corruption, and all those who perpetrate it eradicated from our political landscape, I find your comment disturbing.

     There is no way in hell I condone John Key or any of his minions, or anyone else from any political party, using the mechanisms of government to carry on the way Nicky Hagar has exposed Key as doing.

     It infuriates me to the core that even one dollar of may taxes has been used to support that kind of crap and it is an indictment upon your character and integrity that you even show a shred of tolerance for it.

     Your comment also assumes that Bradley Ambrose is guilty of what Key has accused him of.

     The Police have not charged him with anything, and rightfully so, because Key defamed Ambrose by making the accusation.

     I, for one, am heartily sick of John Key using his political power to hang people in the public forum without evidence.

     A headline accusing someone something IS NOT PROOF OF THEIR GUILT.

     That’s what the justice system is for.

     All you have shown with your comment is the shallowness of your thinking, and your idolatry of a man (Key) who absolutely does not deserve the credit you give him.

     The man is a disgrace who has undermined the integrity of our systems of government and justice more than any other political figure in our history and the faster he is exposed for the scumbag he is, the better.

     History will prove that Bradley Ambrose and Nicky Hagar did this country a favour by shining a light on rodents like Key, who absolutely do not belong in our corridors of power.
4. Bea Brown 4

   15 January 2015 at 10:53 am

   Oh you have me Tracey. I confess to not being absolutely consistent or universal or complete in my views on everything and everyone. And yes I do pop in occasionally when I have something I want to say. I am flattered you know so much about me and do these fascinating searches. Is it designed to intimidate or silence?
   Funny how we are always trolls when we offer a differing view. Is this partly why the Left is so unpopular electorally, because there is no dissent from the party line?
   It’s also a very selective morality when the same action by one person is wrong but when it’s a political friend it’s okay.
   As for Andrea Vance, it seemed to me she deliberately played on an older man’s vanity, exchanged hundreds of texts in a very friendly way and then used the relationship for her own ends. That might be acceptable to some but I think we might expect better from our media than honey traps.

   But ad hominem is always the easiest attack and a feature, sadly, of many blogs these days.
   • North 4.1

     15 January 2015 at 11:16 am

     Funny isn’t it Bea Brown how pinioned devotees at the temple of TheGodKeyAloha always run cry-baby like – “Oooh…….ad hominem ad hominem !” ? I call it intellectual cowardice.

     Emmerson’s cartoon has the sturdiest legs. Best you suck it up or give your genuflexions and worshipful incantations elsewhere. You’re on a hiding to nothing.

     God Save Me……..wild assertion of ‘honey-trap’ is not ad hominem ??????
     • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.1

       15 January 2015 at 12:08 pm

       Imagine that well meaning, kindly but gullible and naïve old man Dunne being victimised by such an amoral career hungry seductress lol
       • Tracey 4.1.1.1

         15 January 2015 at 12:32 pm

         Yes, she may not have known he was being predatory, given he is married, so she was being nice back, and probably waiting for the other shoe to drop, when he revealed what he wanted from her, political self interest-wise. I have no proof, cos I haven’t seen the exchanges.
   • Paul 4.2

     15 January 2015 at 11:20 am

     Please explain how Hager undermined our privacy.
     Such a statement does need some explanation, surely.
     • Tracey 4.2.1

       15 January 2015 at 11:48 am

       it was easier to jump to me as attacking Bea, then repeating an unproven allegation as proof of said allegation, than to answer all the questions.

       It is cool when they can’t resist a calling out, cos they reveal even more of their M.O.
   • Paul 4.3

     15 January 2015 at 11:25 am

     You still have not answered Jeeves’s question at 3.1.
     Can we therefore assume you have no real intention of engaging in discussion?
     And that your mission here was simply to stir?
     • DavidW 4.3.1

       15 January 2015 at 11:48 am

       And your purpose here is?
       • Colonial Rawshark 4.3.1.1

         15 January 2015 at 12:11 pm

         ok. Since Bea can’t (or won’t) justify the random comments she made maybe you can do a better job of explaining how Hager undermined our privacy rights?

         I thought he brought light for the citizens, on to the dirty dealings of the power elite, myself.
       • framu 4.3.1.2

         15 January 2015 at 12:21 pm

         well it would seem pauls purpose with that comment is to point out that bea brown is avoiding any kind of good faith discussion – is that a bad thing?
   • Tracey 4.4

     15 January 2015 at 11:47 am

     interestingly you didnt answering any of my questions nor provided any proof to your unsubstantiated allegations and struggled to resist the reverse psychology.

     so, you have no proof of any despicable behaviour from andrea vance other than your own musings based on a wierd world view where women are Jezebeels.

     Your response is every bit as revealing as your original post. Back to the shadows “Bea Brown”, back to the shadows…
   • Truth Will Out 4.5

     15 January 2015 at 1:33 pm

     @Bea

     The most revealing aspect of your view is your assumption that Bradley Ambrose is guilty of your accusation, which mirrors that of John Key, simply because John Key said so.

     Even when the Police were unable to charge him because it was impossible to prove.

     So, according to you, we only need John Key’s word for it that someone is guilty of whatever he chooses to accuse them of.

     How, in any way whatsoever then, does this differ from the conditions that prevailed in 1930’s Germany?

     Are you suggesting that some politicians are to be so revered, that we no longer need courts or proper processes involving fairness, transparency, or any need for natural justice to occur, we just simply need to take their word for it?

     Why do we even need the justice system then?

     Why do we need courts?

     Why not just let John Key, and people like you, decide who is guilty and who is not, based on your whims?

     Again, how will that differ in any way from the circumstances which prevailed in Nazi Germany?

     You may say “oh well you are crazy for suggesting John Key is like Hitler” – but that is not the point here, is it.

     The point is we need safety mechanisms in place for a very good reason – to prevent John Key or ANYONE ELSE from ever being able to abuse their political power in the manner that Dirty Politics has revealed he has been doing.

     Again, you can protest all you like that John Key would never do such a thing, but there were no end of people who said precisely the same thing about Hitler.

     That’s why Nicky Hager did the right thing for his country.

     It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme to suggest that Key has not, or would not, use information gained by spying on his critics or political opponents against them.

     He has already been caught with his pants down doing precisely that, more than once.

     It is equally intellectually dishonest for you to suggest that simply because he has rushed through law changes under urgency to legitimise such activities, he has the moral high ground over Nicky Hager on these issues.

     The single greatest threat to democracy and human rights in New Zealand is your attitude and the attitude of people who think like you do, because you are trying to legitimise the indefensible by elevating people like John Key above the law.

     This is precisely the kind of thinking which gave rise to Hitler.

     And people attacked anyone who dared criticise him, protesting that he would never do such a thing.

     Nicky Hager did the right thing for this country, exposing how Key and his cronies are abusing their powers in precisely the same way Hitler did.

     I make no apology whatsoever for making the comparisons I have because of it.

     You dishonour every soldier who ever died fighting to defend the very rights and freedoms Key is now trashing, whenever you turn up to any Anzac Dawn parade and place your hand on your heart, pretending you care about the sacrifices they made for us, if you dare to defend the issues surrounding John Key which Nicky Hager exposed in Dirty Politics.

     Your hypocrisy is stunning, which makes you a disgrace and a traitor.
   • ropata:rorschach 4.6

     15 January 2015 at 1:39 pm

     BB has a problem with journalists doing their actual job. Holding public figures to account and revealing inconvenient truths is entirely in the public interest.

     Releasing details about beneficiaries and gagging Bradley Ambrose were shameful episodes in the Key government’s sorry record of privacy breaches and media manipulation.
   • Murray Rawshark 4.7

     16 January 2015 at 1:24 am

     If elected representatives can’t withstand honey traps, they should be chemically castrated. Imagine the information vital to our security that Liz Hurley could get out of FJK.
   • georgecom 4.8

     17 January 2015 at 7:54 pm

     whereas breaking into a political parties website is all good and fine and no breech of privacy? And rewardable with ongoing work in the PMs office?

     You seem to be worrying about information inadvertently obtained, or information passed on by a leaker, but neglect a deliberate and calculated political breech of privacy.
5. Bea Brown 5

   15 January 2015 at 11:54 am

   Had a chuckle, poured a glass of wine and decided to dead head the roses in the sunshine.
   • framu 5.1

     15 January 2015 at 12:17 pm

     so couldnt back up any of your crap then?

     if you could you would

     on this thread youve made a bunch of really dumb claims then had one little cry about someone supposedly being mean to you while ignoring every single attempt to ask you to back yourself up.

     a weak attempt – even for someone with your track record
   • tricledrown 5.2

     15 January 2015 at 12:32 pm

     BB gunning for the Roses they won,t expose your pathetic attempt to stop corruption being brought into the bright light of public scrutiny!
     Run away now you have run out of arguments!
     Watch out for the Roses as well as your thin skin is easily pricked especially the Red roses their out to get you!
   • Tracey 5.3

     15 January 2015 at 12:34 pm

     No self awareness then…

     Imaginary wine, imaginary garden – is there aircon in the office Bea? I assume the wine comment is designed to divert by enticing people to comment on it in an adverse way?
     • framu 5.3.1

       15 January 2015 at 12:37 pm

       didnt know WO had an office
       • Tracey 5.3.1.1

         15 January 2015 at 12:41 pm

         that will be why the police didnt raid it following publication of Blomfield’s personal information
       • ghostwhowalksnz 5.3.1.2

         15 January 2015 at 12:43 pm

         50 Stonedon Dr East Tamaki. Some sort annexe upstairs to an warehouse
   • ropata:rorschach 5.4

     15 January 2015 at 1:44 pm

     Might as well dead-head that “Bradley Amb” rose while you’re at it.
     It’s straining your cognitive faculties too much.
6. North 6

   15 January 2015 at 12:38 pm

   BB – ‘elevenses’ is soooo evocative of the Dubya White House Rose Garden – never however a satisfactory deadener of the pain of religiosity made scarily foolish by giggling clay feet on Aloha Beach.

   Ooops, you’re right @ 5.3 Tracey. Je Suis Enticed !
   • Tracey 6.1

     15 January 2015 at 12:52 pm

     😉

     but… you appear to have self awareness… 😉
7. Wairua 7

   15 January 2015 at 1:00 pm

   With the price of oil falling, it will be interesting to see how long Key can maintain the confidence of caucus in a deflatrionary environment.
   • Tracey 7.1

     15 January 2015 at 1:06 pm

     When he gets home, you will find that oil prices falling is GREAT news of a strong economy (notwithstanding no one is passing on their fuel savings through lower priced products at the counter), and deflation is also good because it is not rampant inflation.
8. Raa 8

   15 January 2015 at 1:03 pm

   With the price of oil falling, it will be interesting to see how long Key can maintain the confidence of his caucus in a deflationary environment.
   • Paul 8.1

     15 January 2015 at 1:07 pm

     War in Iraq will provide a useful distraction.
   • Raa 8.2

     16 January 2015 at 11:54 am

     Heh ..
9. KJS0ne 9

   15 January 2015 at 1:51 pm

   Funny how we call someone out for being a troll, then proceed to feed them copious amounts of what they were after all along. This happens all too often on TS.
   • Tracey 9.1

     15 January 2015 at 2:29 pm

     there are opposing views on how to deal with trolls… one is to ignore them, another is to challenge them on a factual basis. Given the number of viewers of this site far outnumber the number of commenters, perhaps there is merit in the latter.
     • KJS0ne 9.1.1

       15 January 2015 at 2:42 pm

       I’m not opposed to a clear concise demolishing, but when it drags on into a century long parenthesis as happened above, I think we are the ones who end up looking silly. I just think we are easy targets for trolls, an annoying side effect of having so many people who are genuinely passionate.
       • framu 9.1.1.1

         15 January 2015 at 2:59 pm

         it depends on how you respond IMO.

         If you get angry – their work is done, but if you laugh at them – not so much
       • Tracey 9.1.1.2

         15 January 2015 at 3:01 pm

         I hear ya. It’s a connundrum, for me anyway…
       • North 9.1.1.3

         15 January 2015 at 4:56 pm

         Yeah, well, if religious satire of even the most pungent, arguably highly offensive variety is OK in the name of freedom of speech then surely the lampooning of GodKeyAloha theism and those at its temple ain’t that wicked. Not so much so as to have me on the grape before midday anyway.

         It is a question of taste (art) rather than absolutes (science). Very possibly the device hyperbole (validly deployed to illustrate a point, eg. KJSOne @ 9.1.1 above – “……when it drags on into a century long parenthesis……” – is itself rather more comfortably art and thus taste than it is science.

         I trust that my pencil is not seen as unacceptably sharp.

         Mmmm…….the five o’clock hour approaches upon which I shall saviour yet a different ‘taste’.
         • KJS0net 9.1.1.3.1

           15 January 2015 at 5:27 pm

           Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

           My point is more concerned with how we come over to the third party observer rather than how we may react or treat these situations, and my concern is that when we fail to employ an economy of words where trolls are concerned and treat their arguments as if they are genuine and made in good faith, we run the risk of coming off looking gullible.

           I personally feel that these quagmires that are whipped up by the trolls detract from the value of the community here and run the risk of putting people off.
10. Ross 10

    15 January 2015 at 3:20 pm

    There is, I guess, no clearer indication to me of the madness of the times than the last few days since the Charlie Hebdo murders. It started with the language surrounding that event. Instead of a deranged murder perpetrated by mad people (which is what it was), we got drenched in the rhetoric of war as if whole nations had mobilised. Then the leaders of some of the world’s least free marched for freedom of speech. Then the leaders of the world’s (arguably) most free started moving to suppress it (see today’s post “Exploiting the Charlie Hebdo attack”). finally, Glenn Greenwald reports that France has, since the murders, initiated 54 criminal cases against people effectively exercising their right to free speech. So much for Charlie’s pencil.

    The madness is that it seems to be acceptable now to say one thing while doing it’s complete opposite. It becomes acceptable in the absence of resistance. These threads gather surprisingly few comments, apart from bantering with obvious trolls or crazy people to no effect. And while I understand the sites pride in pageview numbers, there is a gulf between reading and saying. Silence is acquiescence. As an analyst I’d be reporting back to my overlords that it’s OK, no one cares about press freedom. You can start throwing the journos in jail.
    • tricledrown 10.1

      15 January 2015 at 4:18 pm

      Theres hardly any Journalists left in this country and the ones left are being persecuted ie Hager any one objecting tp this corrupt Key govt.
      • Ross 10.1.1

        15 January 2015 at 5:02 pm

        Any clue to an answer tricledrown? In a way, do we need journalists any more when the dissemination of news happens online faster and more honestly? Unfortunately the internet is a two edged sword. The lies also appear as quickly. At the moment it’s like living in a debating society gone mutant where every argument for pro and con gets voiced simultaneously in a raucous, indecipherable babble. Is anyone aware of any mechanism that is evolving now to mute the one and amplify the other?
11. Tracey 11

    16 January 2015 at 10:44 am

    Now that John Key has joined the cry for freedom of expression, can someone please ask him how he feels about the following

    Professor Jane Kelsey, an academic living her statutory obligation to be society’s critic and conscience is being spied on for speaking against government policies.

    She writes in more detail about her experiences trying to get her file from the SIS here

    http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/22/07.htm
    (this one is a very good read for those interested in freedom of speech, academics, spying etc)

    So how about it John, will you fight to the death for her right to speak out without being under surveillance and give her the entire file, or…. NOT?
12. Ed 12

    16 January 2015 at 6:49 pm

    I remember a newspaper article that clearly set out a list of how John Key had targetted journalists going about their work – but cannot now find it. url anyone?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS