Media Thread 2017/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
I avoid the news like the pague, nothing to do with a city agenda or anything but more that I studied Journalism at university and, as far as I am concerned, this put hte fail nail in the coffin that proves the entire media - from the BBC to the Sun - Are nothing but money grabbing, audience pleasing, hysteria creating cretins and I will have nothing to do with them.

I did however break my tradition after our win against liverpool because I wanted to see just exactly how bad they are reacting to it. With all this in mind I was honestly flabbergasted by the reaction to the Red Card.
"Never a red Card" They scream "He's not that sort of player" They plead "he's got every right to go for it" They 'inform' "Ederson lowered his head!" They point out - The last one being my favourite as this implies that Ederson ( A keeper who cannot use his hands) deserved to be kicked in the face because he went for the ball as any normal player with any decency and proper awareness would do.
*Quick Note:* I have spoilered parts of the post because I realise I went on a rather Loquacious post.

It's interesting because we have ex-pros telling us they would have gone for it, and had they in the same way mane did, they would have been sent off as well.
Ederson has his head down, slightly. But he is taller than Mane (6'2", 5'9" Respectively) and naturally needs to in order to head the ball and yet he still recieved studs straight into the side of his face. The bending over argument is fine if the player in question has bent fully at the waist to obviously play for the foul - Something not uncommon in football - but Ederson had lowered his height slighty to head it as this was the safest way to deal with the balls trajectory, and I'm assuming he would think that Mane will go in for the head as well.

The other thing they all say is It's unintentional Which has about as much relevence to how this incident should be governed as what colour my socks are to what I will be eating for dinner. The oft' quoted rule is that intentional or not endangerouring an opponent with reckless behaviour is serious foul play and will, inevitably, lead to a red card. Rightfully so I'm sure anyone who has played football will agree. And I cannot think of anything more reckless than essentially karate kicking at a ball around your head height with an opposing player also approaching, in fact a case could be made for severe negligence or even intent from Mané, although to be honest I doubt the intent, it was obviously a misjudgement of edersons speed, starting position and desire to win that ball - But this is not a defence. You are responsible for others safety as much as you are. Hence putting rules like this one into play.
But then why was he trying to get his foot to it. If you have played football you can see mane was trying to nudge the ball away around Ederson which implies he's knows Ederson is there. If he doesn't Know Ederson is there, why lead with the foot in such a way that Close control is impossible? Doesn't add up.

There is only one place that this is not a red card and that's the world of the media. Far be it from them to insinuate to their loyal markets and biggest source of revenue/clicks that their team did something wrong. No, they are in fact the victims because that's what people who read the news want to be told, they want to be told that everything is against them and people will read and pay for what they agree with. (Any one who disagrees with this can take it up with the human conciousness rather than me as I have little time to waste replying on it's behalf) and a Mane red card earlish into a game that was 1-0 and ended up 5-0 is the perfect way to perpetuate this illusiion and so the die was cast and once again Liverpool were hard done to. Nothing is made of Liverpools failure to adapt tactics, nothing is made of the way even though it was an attacker they lost Liverpools Back 4 were still split easier than a Kinder-egg and Mignolet didn't do himself any favours.But who would pay to read that? Definitely not the antiquated fans who yern for a time where Red ruled Football.

Last night a Newcastle player called ritchie performed a foul that was oddly familiar and only recieved a yellow card. Conviently just a day after a faux media outrage erupted because a player was rightly sent off for kicking an opposing player in his face. Before I continue I will state I am not trying to say this was planned or anything, I'm not crazy. However, the media caught on and are now questioning why was this one different, what made them different etc. etc. Truly great timing for a profession that thrives on conflict, disinformation and hatred.

It is interesting that in the past two league games city have had controversial red cards given against them. There were a few whispers when Walker was sent of for "glancing menancingly at an opponent who then fell over". Followed by cries of indifference when Sterling was given his marching orders after celebrating with some fans who had gotten access to the pitch. But then what followed this? A Sky news Poll on what the fuck was the ref thinking/Were City the victim of a horrible, tragedy of a ref decision? Columns and columns of ex-professionals with clearly defined aligences and about the same brain-capacity as the chair I'm currently sat on? No, they were forgotten, city told to suck it up - "These things even up eventually" (although I'm sure many agree we are still waiting for our decisions to even out and I'm not sure a very blatent red card decision for what would amount to an assault of the playing field warrents a decision "In our favour" And sterling once again vilified for just doing his job
What's the upshot of this? Well, Moss made a damn good decision and in the heat of the moment, in a huge game early on, remarkable credit for that and what is his reward? he is hounded because people want it to be the wrong decision, it's played on repeat, he's told he's essentially ruining the games with his anal aplication of the rules. How dare he? The question we then need to ask is why should he bother in the future? Why should any of them? Why should they risk being demoted because the occupational equivalant of the dunking stool, hound him and his employers for making the 'wrong' decision? I strongly believe, and would argue that it's basic human psyche, that it's not worth the hassle for them. Why should they apply laws properly when a lackidasical application of basic rules gets far less coverage as long as they are to an outlier of the circle of media darlings and no-one questions their decisions for longer than Gary neville can bother talking about? There's no reason unless you are a pillar of virtue. And, I apologise to any professional refs reading this, I highly doubt any of them exist. Prove me wrong Anthony Taylor.

It honestly astounds me that people believe there's no agenda in the press and come on here and argue to that point. In fact I find it harder to believe people actually feel this way than there is an inherent bias in the press, and this entire red card situation has once again reinfornced my beliefs. And as for the hatred and bile Sterling gets, well it leaves me speechless.

When the sole reason to create news is to make money you know the press is dead.


Bang On, get this man a drink!!
 
I avoid the news like the pague, nothing to do with a city agenda or anything but more that I studied Journalism at university and, as far as I am concerned, this put hte fail nail in the coffin that proves the entire media - from the BBC to the Sun - Are nothing but money grabbing, audience pleasing, hysteria creating cretins and I will have nothing to do with them.

I did however break my tradition after our win against liverpool because I wanted to see just exactly how bad they are reacting to it. With all this in mind I was honestly flabbergasted by the reaction to the Red Card.
"Never a red Card" They scream "He's not that sort of player" They plead "he's got every right to go for it" They 'inform' "Ederson lowered his head!" They point out - The last one being my favourite as this implies that Ederson ( A keeper who cannot use his hands) deserved to be kicked in the face because he went for the ball as any normal player with any decency and proper awareness would do.
*Quick Note:* I have spoilered parts of the post because I realise I went on a rather Loquacious post.

It's interesting because we have ex-pros telling us they would have gone for it, and had they in the same way mane did, they would have been sent off as well.
Ederson has his head down, slightly. But he is taller than Mane (6'2", 5'9" Respectively) and naturally needs to in order to head the ball and yet he still recieved studs straight into the side of his face. The bending over argument is fine if the player in question has bent fully at the waist to obviously play for the foul - Something not uncommon in football - but Ederson had lowered his height slighty to head it as this was the safest way to deal with the balls trajectory, and I'm assuming he would think that Mane will go in for the head as well.

The other thing they all say is It's unintentional Which has about as much relevence to how this incident should be governed as what colour my socks are to what I will be eating for dinner. The oft' quoted rule is that intentional or not endangerouring an opponent with reckless behaviour is serious foul play and will, inevitably, lead to a red card. Rightfully so I'm sure anyone who has played football will agree. And I cannot think of anything more reckless than essentially karate kicking at a ball around your head height with an opposing player also approaching, in fact a case could be made for severe negligence or even intent from Mané, although to be honest I doubt the intent, it was obviously a misjudgement of edersons speed, starting position and desire to win that ball - But this is not a defence. You are responsible for others safety as much as you are. Hence putting rules like this one into play.
But then why was he trying to get his foot to it. If you have played football you can see mane was trying to nudge the ball away around Ederson which implies he's knows Ederson is there. If he doesn't Know Ederson is there, why lead with the foot in such a way that Close control is impossible? Doesn't add up.

There is only one place that this is not a red card and that's the world of the media. Far be it from them to insinuate to their loyal markets and biggest source of revenue/clicks that their team did something wrong. No, they are in fact the victims because that's what people who read the news want to be told, they want to be told that everything is against them and people will read and pay for what they agree with. (Any one who disagrees with this can take it up with the human conciousness rather than me as I have little time to waste replying on it's behalf) and a Mane red card earlish into a game that was 1-0 and ended up 5-0 is the perfect way to perpetuate this illusiion and so the die was cast and once again Liverpool were hard done to. Nothing is made of Liverpools failure to adapt tactics, nothing is made of the way even though it was an attacker they lost Liverpools Back 4 were still split easier than a Kinder-egg and Mignolet didn't do himself any favours.But who would pay to read that? Definitely not the antiquated fans who yern for a time where Red ruled Football.

Last night a Newcastle player called ritchie performed a foul that was oddly familiar and only recieved a yellow card. Conviently just a day after a faux media outrage erupted because a player was rightly sent off for kicking an opposing player in his face. Before I continue I will state I am not trying to say this was planned or anything, I'm not crazy. However, the media caught on and are now questioning why was this one different, what made them different etc. etc. Truly great timing for a profession that thrives on conflict, disinformation and hatred.

It is interesting that in the past two league games city have had controversial red cards given against them. There were a few whispers when Walker was sent of for "glancing menancingly at an opponent who then fell over". Followed by cries of indifference when Sterling was given his marching orders after celebrating with some fans who had gotten access to the pitch. But then what followed this? A Sky news Poll on what the fuck was the ref thinking/Were City the victim of a horrible, tragedy of a ref decision? Columns and columns of ex-professionals with clearly defined aligences and about the same brain-capacity as the chair I'm currently sat on? No, they were forgotten, city told to suck it up - "These things even up eventually" (although I'm sure many agree we are still waiting for our decisions to even out and I'm not sure a very blatent red card decision for what would amount to an assault of the playing field warrents a decision "In our favour" And sterling once again vilified for just doing his job
What's the upshot of this? Well, Moss made a damn good decision and in the heat of the moment, in a huge game early on, remarkable credit for that and what is his reward? he is hounded because people want it to be the wrong decision, it's played on repeat, he's told he's essentially ruining the games with his anal aplication of the rules. How dare he? The question we then need to ask is why should he bother in the future? Why should any of them? Why should they risk being demoted because the occupational equivalant of the dunking stool, hound him and his employers for making the 'wrong' decision? I strongly believe, and would argue that it's basic human psyche, that it's not worth the hassle for them. Why should they apply laws properly when a lackidasical application of basic rules gets far less coverage as long as they are to an outlier of the circle of media darlings and no-one questions their decisions for longer than Gary neville can bother talking about? There's no reason unless you are a pillar of virtue. And, I apologise to any professional refs reading this, I highly doubt any of them exist. Prove me wrong Anthony Taylor.

It honestly astounds me that people believe there's no agenda in the press and come on here and argue to that point. In fact I find it harder to believe people actually feel this way than there is an inherent bias in the press, and this entire red card situation has once again reinfornced my beliefs. And as for the hatred and bile Sterling gets, well it leaves me speechless.

When the sole reason to create news is to make money you know the press is dead.
Thank you, brilliant post.
 
I avoid the news like the pague, nothing to do with a city agenda or anything but more that I studied Journalism at university and, as far as I am concerned, this put hte fail nail in the coffin that proves the entire media - from the BBC to the Sun - Are nothing but money grabbing, audience pleasing, hysteria creating cretins and I will have nothing to do with them.

I did however break my tradition after our win against liverpool because I wanted to see just exactly how bad they are reacting to it. With all this in mind I was honestly flabbergasted by the reaction to the Red Card.
"Never a red Card" They scream "He's not that sort of player" They plead "he's got every right to go for it" They 'inform' "Ederson lowered his head!" They point out - The last one being my favourite as this implies that Ederson ( A keeper who cannot use his hands) deserved to be kicked in the face because he went for the ball as any normal player with any decency and proper awareness would do.
*Quick Note:* I have spoilered parts of the post because I realise I went on a rather Loquacious post.

It's interesting because we have ex-pros telling us they would have gone for it, and had they in the same way mane did, they would have been sent off as well.
Ederson has his head down, slightly. But he is taller than Mane (6'2", 5'9" Respectively) and naturally needs to in order to head the ball and yet he still recieved studs straight into the side of his face. The bending over argument is fine if the player in question has bent fully at the waist to obviously play for the foul - Something not uncommon in football - but Ederson had lowered his height slighty to head it as this was the safest way to deal with the balls trajectory, and I'm assuming he would think that Mane will go in for the head as well.

The other thing they all say is It's unintentional Which has about as much relevence to how this incident should be governed as what colour my socks are to what I will be eating for dinner. The oft' quoted rule is that intentional or not endangerouring an opponent with reckless behaviour is serious foul play and will, inevitably, lead to a red card. Rightfully so I'm sure anyone who has played football will agree. And I cannot think of anything more reckless than essentially karate kicking at a ball around your head height with an opposing player also approaching, in fact a case could be made for severe negligence or even intent from Mané, although to be honest I doubt the intent, it was obviously a misjudgement of edersons speed, starting position and desire to win that ball - But this is not a defence. You are responsible for others safety as much as you are. Hence putting rules like this one into play.
But then why was he trying to get his foot to it. If you have played football you can see mane was trying to nudge the ball away around Ederson which implies he's knows Ederson is there. If he doesn't Know Ederson is there, why lead with the foot in such a way that Close control is impossible? Doesn't add up.

There is only one place that this is not a red card and that's the world of the media. Far be it from them to insinuate to their loyal markets and biggest source of revenue/clicks that their team did something wrong. No, they are in fact the victims because that's what people who read the news want to be told, they want to be told that everything is against them and people will read and pay for what they agree with. (Any one who disagrees with this can take it up with the human conciousness rather than me as I have little time to waste replying on it's behalf) and a Mane red card earlish into a game that was 1-0 and ended up 5-0 is the perfect way to perpetuate this illusiion and so the die was cast and once again Liverpool were hard done to. Nothing is made of Liverpools failure to adapt tactics, nothing is made of the way even though it was an attacker they lost Liverpools Back 4 were still split easier than a Kinder-egg and Mignolet didn't do himself any favours.But who would pay to read that? Definitely not the antiquated fans who yern for a time where Red ruled Football.

Last night a Newcastle player called ritchie performed a foul that was oddly familiar and only recieved a yellow card. Conviently just a day after a faux media outrage erupted because a player was rightly sent off for kicking an opposing player in his face. Before I continue I will state I am not trying to say this was planned or anything, I'm not crazy. However, the media caught on and are now questioning why was this one different, what made them different etc. etc. Truly great timing for a profession that thrives on conflict, disinformation and hatred.

It is interesting that in the past two league games city have had controversial red cards given against them. There were a few whispers when Walker was sent of for "glancing menancingly at an opponent who then fell over". Followed by cries of indifference when Sterling was given his marching orders after celebrating with some fans who had gotten access to the pitch. But then what followed this? A Sky news Poll on what the fuck was the ref thinking/Were City the victim of a horrible, tragedy of a ref decision? Columns and columns of ex-professionals with clearly defined aligences and about the same brain-capacity as the chair I'm currently sat on? No, they were forgotten, city told to suck it up - "These things even up eventually" (although I'm sure many agree we are still waiting for our decisions to even out and I'm not sure a very blatent red card decision for what would amount to an assault of the playing field warrents a decision "In our favour" And sterling once again vilified for just doing his job
What's the upshot of this? Well, Moss made a damn good decision and in the heat of the moment, in a huge game early on, remarkable credit for that and what is his reward? he is hounded because people want it to be the wrong decision, it's played on repeat, he's told he's essentially ruining the games with his anal aplication of the rules. How dare he? The question we then need to ask is why should he bother in the future? Why should any of them? Why should they risk being demoted because the occupational equivalant of the dunking stool, hound him and his employers for making the 'wrong' decision? I strongly believe, and would argue that it's basic human psyche, that it's not worth the hassle for them. Why should they apply laws properly when a lackidasical application of basic rules gets far less coverage as long as they are to an outlier of the circle of media darlings and no-one questions their decisions for longer than Gary neville can bother talking about? There's no reason unless you are a pillar of virtue. And, I apologise to any professional refs reading this, I highly doubt any of them exist. Prove me wrong Anthony Taylor.

It honestly astounds me that people believe there's no agenda in the press and come on here and argue to that point. In fact I find it harder to believe people actually feel this way than there is an inherent bias in the press, and this entire red card situation has once again reinfornced my beliefs. And as for the hatred and bile Sterling gets, well it leaves me speechless.

When the sole reason to create news is to make money you know the press is dead.
Outstanding post. Nails it once and for all.

Just been listening to Radio 5 Live and they had Steve Howey on talking about the two incidents. Now he was reasonably sensible but with the greatest respect, he's not a qualified referee. If the BBC's remit includes informing, educating and entertaining then surely the correct approach would be to get a qualified referee on to explain. To me, a layman, Law 12 talks about being reckless, which earns a yellow card, and endangering the safety of an opponent, which requires a red. So it would be nice to be able to understand what the difference is. I take it to mean that because Mane made contact and injured Ederson, that crosses the line whereas Ritchie didn't appear to endanger Mawson's safety, although he was reckless.

I'd expect the BBC to be at the forefront of a rational explanation but they simply seek to continue the controversy.
 
I avoid the news like the pague, nothing to do with a city agenda or anything but more that I studied Journalism at university and, as far as I am concerned, this put hte fail nail in the coffin that proves the entire media - from the BBC to the Sun - Are nothing but money grabbing, audience pleasing, hysteria creating cretins and I will have nothing to do with them.

I did however break my tradition after our win against liverpool because I wanted to see just exactly how bad they are reacting to it. With all this in mind I was honestly flabbergasted by the reaction to the Red Card.
"Never a red Card" They scream "He's not that sort of player" They plead "he's got every right to go for it" They 'inform' "Ederson lowered his head!" They point out - The last one being my favourite as this implies that Ederson ( A keeper who cannot use his hands) deserved to be kicked in the face because he went for the ball as any normal player with any decency and proper awareness would do.
*Quick Note:* I have spoilered parts of the post because I realise I went on a rather Loquacious post.

It's interesting because we have ex-pros telling us they would have gone for it, and had they in the same way mane did, they would have been sent off as well.
Ederson has his head down, slightly. But he is taller than Mane (6'2", 5'9" Respectively) and naturally needs to in order to head the ball and yet he still recieved studs straight into the side of his face. The bending over argument is fine if the player in question has bent fully at the waist to obviously play for the foul - Something not uncommon in football - but Ederson had lowered his height slighty to head it as this was the safest way to deal with the balls trajectory, and I'm assuming he would think that Mane will go in for the head as well.

The other thing they all say is It's unintentional Which has about as much relevence to how this incident should be governed as what colour my socks are to what I will be eating for dinner. The oft' quoted rule is that intentional or not endangerouring an opponent with reckless behaviour is serious foul play and will, inevitably, lead to a red card. Rightfully so I'm sure anyone who has played football will agree. And I cannot think of anything more reckless than essentially karate kicking at a ball around your head height with an opposing player also approaching, in fact a case could be made for severe negligence or even intent from Mané, although to be honest I doubt the intent, it was obviously a misjudgement of edersons speed, starting position and desire to win that ball - But this is not a defence. You are responsible for others safety as much as you are. Hence putting rules like this one into play.
But then why was he trying to get his foot to it. If you have played football you can see mane was trying to nudge the ball away around Ederson which implies he's knows Ederson is there. If he doesn't Know Ederson is there, why lead with the foot in such a way that Close control is impossible? Doesn't add up.

There is only one place that this is not a red card and that's the world of the media. Far be it from them to insinuate to their loyal markets and biggest source of revenue/clicks that their team did something wrong. No, they are in fact the victims because that's what people who read the news want to be told, they want to be told that everything is against them and people will read and pay for what they agree with. (Any one who disagrees with this can take it up with the human conciousness rather than me as I have little time to waste replying on it's behalf) and a Mane red card earlish into a game that was 1-0 and ended up 5-0 is the perfect way to perpetuate this illusiion and so the die was cast and once again Liverpool were hard done to. Nothing is made of Liverpools failure to adapt tactics, nothing is made of the way even though it was an attacker they lost Liverpools Back 4 were still split easier than a Kinder-egg and Mignolet didn't do himself any favours.But who would pay to read that? Definitely not the antiquated fans who yern for a time where Red ruled Football.

Last night a Newcastle player called ritchie performed a foul that was oddly familiar and only recieved a yellow card. Conviently just a day after a faux media outrage erupted because a player was rightly sent off for kicking an opposing player in his face. Before I continue I will state I am not trying to say this was planned or anything, I'm not crazy. However, the media caught on and are now questioning why was this one different, what made them different etc. etc. Truly great timing for a profession that thrives on conflict, disinformation and hatred.

It is interesting that in the past two league games city have had controversial red cards given against them. There were a few whispers when Walker was sent of for "glancing menancingly at an opponent who then fell over". Followed by cries of indifference when Sterling was given his marching orders after celebrating with some fans who had gotten access to the pitch. But then what followed this? A Sky news Poll on what the fuck was the ref thinking/Were City the victim of a horrible, tragedy of a ref decision? Columns and columns of ex-professionals with clearly defined aligences and about the same brain-capacity as the chair I'm currently sat on? No, they were forgotten, city told to suck it up - "These things even up eventually" (although I'm sure many agree we are still waiting for our decisions to even out and I'm not sure a very blatent red card decision for what would amount to an assault of the playing field warrents a decision "In our favour" And sterling once again vilified for just doing his job
What's the upshot of this? Well, Moss made a damn good decision and in the heat of the moment, in a huge game early on, remarkable credit for that and what is his reward? he is hounded because people want it to be the wrong decision, it's played on repeat, he's told he's essentially ruining the games with his anal aplication of the rules. How dare he? The question we then need to ask is why should he bother in the future? Why should any of them? Why should they risk being demoted because the occupational equivalant of the dunking stool, hound him and his employers for making the 'wrong' decision? I strongly believe, and would argue that it's basic human psyche, that it's not worth the hassle for them. Why should they apply laws properly when a lackidasical application of basic rules gets far less coverage as long as they are to an outlier of the circle of media darlings and no-one questions their decisions for longer than Gary neville can bother talking about? There's no reason unless you are a pillar of virtue. And, I apologise to any professional refs reading this, I highly doubt any of them exist. Prove me wrong Anthony Taylor.

It honestly astounds me that people believe there's no agenda in the press and come on here and argue to that point. In fact I find it harder to believe people actually feel this way than there is an inherent bias in the press, and this entire red card situation has once again reinfornced my beliefs. And as for the hatred and bile Sterling gets, well it leaves me speechless.

When the sole reason to create news is to make money you know the press is dead.

Brilliant post. The sad thing about the media and some pundits downplaying this challenge is that had Mane caught him on the temple we could be talking about an outcome much worse. Have these people forgotten what happened to Petr Cech? There's a reason that a foot over head height is a foul, but a high foot that is launched at distance with two feet off the ground that connects with a 6ft 2 keeper in the head is deemed by some sections of the media as not a sending off. Are they seriously trying to credibly argue that isnt serious foul play? For some their hatred and bias against us really does know no bounds.

If this challenge had been any other team there wouldn't have even been a debate.

Is it any wonder that John Moss, who made a correct decision but is now being vilified, that referees are reluctant to give any decisions against the top 6 in our favour?
 
Last edited:
According to the now sucking up and groveling Sun, Liverpool FC are....

Screenshot_20170911-055856.png

You only have to look at the clarity of the two pictures to see how desperate the media are to suggest the two incidents are the same. They have a blurry image that might suggest Ritchies foot is at the same height as Mane that was clearly some kind of millisecond judging by the quality of that image. It's clear however that Ritchie caught Mawson on the arm so nothing like as severe. That said I don't think it would be too much of an injustice had Ritchie got sent off but would probably have warranted a debate.
 
Someone (*cough*) has added a paragraph to Martin Tyler's Wiki entry. Well, someone had to do it.

"He is a lifelong supporter of Manchester United but is justifiably proud of the fact that he never allows his support for that club to affect the neutrality of his commentating."
 
Marcotti done a decent article in Times, paywall unfortunately.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...are-failing-to-find-homegrown-stars-lbzr7b99t

He's basically made a mockery of argument that certain clubs bring youth through and others dont.

Of europes big 5 leagues, their champions league teams have a grand total of 8 homegrown players (at club before 16), under 30 who are starters.

Koke, Saul, Rico, Rabiot, Insigne, Mueller, Rashford and Kane.

Still think it's too early to call Rashford a starter.
 
Bang On, get this man a drink!!
This sensationalist press style, is, as you say, all to do with making money.
The Murdoch press were, in my opinion, the instigators of this.
I have recently discovered that the 'impartial' BBC have become a pawn in this game.
I am currently in China and whenever I look on the BBC site the pages are led by American stories and contain an inordinate amount of American 'click bait'.
What to make of this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.