Sunday, June 25, 2006

Frank Walton’s shocking, scandalous, perfidious, ignominious, rascally and recreant tactics

“What do you Christians think of Walton's tactics here? Is it acceptable in Christian circles?”

—John Loftus

Before I discuss Walton’s disreputable behavior I must ask all parents to send their children out of the room.

Are they gone?

So what, exactly, is Walton guilty of? Well, for the lurid details you have to go over to Daniel Morgan’s blog.

I won’t tell you where to find Danny’s blog since he might sue me for copyright infringement if I were to publicize the URL.

Anyway, if you go over to Danny’s blog, you’ll discover that Walton has fallen into the disputable habit—are you ready for this?—of quoting his opponents verbatim!

Yes, you heard it right. He’s been known to quote them word for word. To post their actual words on the Internet.

It’s hard to believe that a Christian blogger would sink so low, but there you have it.

Danny has responded to this unscrupulous behavior by threatening to sue Walton for copyright infringement.

To prove his point he directs the reader to the U.S. Copyright Office, which says the following:

Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

So quoting email is a clear case of copyright infringement.

You can see that right under #1.

Or is it #2?

Maybe #3?

#4 perchance?

Possibly #5?

What about #6, #7, or #8?

Hard to tell, but it must be in there somewhere since Danny says it’s so—whether we classify email as a sculpture, skyscraper, motion picture, pantomime, or grand opera.

Now, if Walton were a man of honor, he’d know better than to quote his opponents verbatim.

Obviously the only principle course of action is to misquote your opponents. To quote them out of context. To paraphrase what they said in some misleading way.

But Walton is far too dishonest to misquote his opponents. Instead, he smears their reputation by quoting their own words right back to them.

And I’m sure I don’t have to remind you all that when you’re quoting the average atheist, nothing could be more defamatory to his personal character than to accurately reproduce his very own words.

By contrast, Walton’s critics have maintained the high moral tone you’d expect of a secular ethicist, by resorting to racial slurs and epithets—as well as threatening to lynch him and rape his wife.

By contrast, Walton’s critics delete commenters who disagree with them.

By contrast, Walton’s critics resort to legal threats when they lose the argument.

So, as a Christian, in answer to Loftus’ query, I must admit that Walton’s underhanded tactic of quoting his opponents word-for-word is utterly reprehensible and sorely illustrates the pressing need to replace antiquated Christian ethics with a secular code of conduct.

39 comments:

  1. Thank you, Steve. I appreciate it. Hey Loftus, at least Steve is cuter than you are.

    As for Daniel Morgan these links may be helpful:

    -Dear, oh, dear, what to do with Aaron Rosetti and Daniel Morgan

    -Frank loves playing with fire!

    -What Daniel Morgan apologists have said of me (warning: this is filled with profanity and racist comments)

    - Proof that Daniel Morgan does no do his homework

    Personally, I think this Dan Morgan guy is a coward.

    Now, for you, dear Mr. Loftus, I give you these:

    -One of our readers had this to say about John W. Loftus

    -Poisoning his mind

    -"Frank Walton Recognizes He Was wrong!" Oh, no!

    Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trilly-boogers:

    I threatened to sue Frank for libel, not for the copyright infringement. I mentioned the latter as a tangential ethical issue, because I had told him in the emails that I did not give him permission to reproduce them, which he quaintly ignored. You also have ignored that this whole thing evolved from his posting a third party email exchange without Aaron's permission.

    It also appears that you suffer from a weakness in reading comprehension: literary works include any private electronic mail communications. Furthermore, I linked to two attorneys who analyzed the issue as support, but I suppose critiquing a lawyer is a little more difficult, since none of you know copyright law from your anal sphincter, eh?

    So you guys don't take your own advice and reproduce my own words, do you? Or link to them? It's a lot easier to maintain the facade of a "non-straw man" if you don't juxtapose against the "real thing" isn't it?

    Frankie boy said:
    Personally, I think this Dan Morgan guy is a coward.

    Oh yeah, Frank, cause I'm the one who pisses his panties over his "real name" and location being found out. You're a laff riot, bud.

    I guess it was a slow night at the grist mill for our Reformed friends. I suppose waiting on Jesus to return leaves us with plenty of time on our hands, eh? Okay, time to toast to the trilly-boogers and their pet troll:
    chutzpah!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here, I'll help you out, since you told Frank's side of the story and let him post his links:

    1) What a Shield We Have in Jesus
    2) Frank and Playing With Fire

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's entertaining to what an atheist moralize.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It doesn't seem to be getting any easier for Dan Morgan. See here. I told you about that website, Danny. How you can recommend it is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, Danny, what you did by providing those links was just reinforce my side of the story even more. Thanks.

    But you talk about libel? What libel?! Here's what super-sensitive Dan Morgan wrote to me in an e-mail (this is what started the whole fiasco, people):


    June 18, 2006

    Frank,

    I know this will be difficult for you, but do try to read the "Commenting Guidelines" to help you understand why your comment was rejected:

    "*/Commenting Guidelines... /*The goal of */Out of Christianity/* is not the same as the Christian agenda. Though Christians and Christianity have their place in the world and they certainly had blessed our lives for a season, we seek to be unique within this forum and are of those that want an arena free of evangelism. We didn't just hear the Christian's view... /*We fought for it.*/**Most Christians know where to get a Christian perspective already, but many who are questioning things that their Christian community can't seem to answer and have a harder time finding a safe place to express their doubts and get the other side of the story... especially from those who have walked through similar journeys already. This blog is open for comments from anyone, but we'd ask that /*Christians not see this blog as an opportunity for evangelism*/ and thank you in advance for respecting this request."

    Aaron made it clear that he does not want any attempts at evangelism within his forum. It is more "support group" than "invite to apologists"... as if you and yours don't have enough places to graze for that.

    Aaron does not consider himself a "debater" nor his blog a "debate forum" and thus your puerile attempts at getting him into a debate with Gene Cook are silly. Aren't there enough unbelievers out there for you to waste your miserable life arguing with?

    It doesn't surprise me that you would support Coulter's book. You probably haven't read it, and won't bother, but the title is about all that should make your dick hard. It's a pretty miserable flop after that, with its apparent plagiarism and anti-science rants.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/investigating-coulter-for-plagiarism.html

    You're a pathetic little twerp, aren't you, in expending all of your energy, and your love for Jesus, in bashing the Infidel Guy and Loftus. Ever get laid? Drink a beer? Have a life? You poor bastard.

    Sincerely,

    Daniel


    And here's what I wrote in response to that in my blog (which is now deleted thanks to you-know-who):

    Apparently, if a Christian ever makes a refutation in the comment section the staff of "Out of Christianity" will take it as "evangelism" and would therefore delete it. Typical. I'm not so sure why Daniel is so interested in my penis or my sex life but at least I have both.

    LOL, And Daniel Morgan calls that libel, people! He explains it here to me (and his readers):

    As you already know, you did not ask for my permission to reproduce the email that I sent to you, with the legal expectation of privacy, and the legal rights to the original literary work, on your web site. Furthermore, you knew that you were required to request my permission to reproduce my original literary work, which is indeed copyright protected. I already informed you of these facts of law. I deny you the permission to post this, and all other, private communications. I request that you remove the email, and I made this issue crystal clear in one of the prior emails I sent to you. You have also made a legal error in posting libelous information against me. You made patently false claims of fact which damage my reputation and character in implying that:

    1) I am "so interested" in your own "penis" and "sex life"

    2) I have no "penis" or "sex life" since "at least I [Frank Walton] have both".


    Aw, I hurt Morgan's feeling because I made it look like he literally had no penis or a sex life let alone had people think he was interested in my penis. Poor, poor, Morgan, I guess I traumatized him half to death.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is it with apostates and bad language/ obession with sex ond/or private parts. It's not big and it's not clever. Daniel Morgan reminds me of the ghastly teenagers I used to teach. Old man, if you can't express yourself without swearing, say nothinbg at all. You ought to have your mouth washed out with soapy water!

    Swearwords do not make you clever, but they do suggest you have the intellectual abilities and charm of a blue-based baboon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and Mr. Morgan, you lose your control over letters when you send them to someone else. I personally recommend that you never write a letter or e-mail that you wouldn't be embarrassed to see in the public domain. Just a little free ethical advice, don't you know?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Man, how did those Enron execs miss the "E-mails are copyrighted and cannot be divulged to third parties" legal tactic?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let me see...Daniel Morgan got upset because Walton wrote:

    "I'm not so sure why Daniel is so interested in my penis or my sex life but at least I have both."

    Morgan claims:

    ---
    Frank Walton now makes two claims:
    1) That I am "so interested" in his penis and his sex life
    2) He implies, by, "at least I have both," that I do not have either of the two, perhaps alleging that this is what #1 stems from
    ---

    So the "libel" is based on an implication, not an actual statement. Walton did not say, "but at least I have both unlike Daniel Morgan" but instead Daniel Morgan assumes that that is what is meant by Walton's statement.

    But of course Walton's statement does not have to be referring to Morgan at all. Thus, I find it highly unlikely that Morgan would be able to substantiate a libel claim in any court (outside of the 9th Circus, anyway).

    But in any case, if we want to talk about "libel" that's not by implication, I think Morgan already engaged in that when he said (see above): "...but I suppose critiquing a lawyer is a little more difficult, since none of you know copyright law from your anal sphincter, eh?" Thus Morgan is not implying but explicitly stating that "none of you" (being the people at Triablogue, since Morgan started with the kind address of "Trilly-boogers:") are intelligent enough to tell the difference between copyright law and their anal sphincter.

    But don't worry, Morgan. I doubt that any of the Triabloguers consider that libel any more than anyone on Earth (besides you) considers what Walton said to be libel.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey Steve,
    Did you know that the photo in your profile is of a gay guy?

    ReplyDelete
  13. “I do not believe that Cary was homosexual. Were that true, I believe he would have married once to appease the studio moguls and then pursued his pleasures quietly, e.g. Rock Hudson. The truth is, he was married five times, dated (intimately) very extensively and had a grand passion for Sophia Loren.”

    http://www.carygrant.net/biography.html

    http://www.carygrant.net/faq.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe you are a homosexual if thats any consolation.

    Hey if Frank Walton is such a bastion of Christian wisdom, a fearless fighter for the gospel, one of Davids mighty men.

    Why does he retreat to your site to recieve comments?

    Why don't you urge "badass" to allow comments on his blog.

    He seems to always be complaining about his home address, his phone number being posted when he knows it's not his reall address or phone number.

    I know because I know his real number and address.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gee Ted Bell, And what's to stop you from posting my real home address and phone number anyway, ya moron? I don't allow comments because of people like you who continue to stalk me and place inappropriate material in my blog-comment section (like swearing and pornographic materials). Ted, you're scum. And like most people of your ilk you tend to attract low-lifes who link to your blogsite, like flies linking to dung. Without even trying I caught Dan Morgan for being an idiot with a potty mouth by posting his e-mail in my blog. That's all. And for that he threatens to sue me. (Although he's trying to change the story to the fact that he's suing me for libel.) Then girlie-man John W. Loftus tries to make it look like I admitted I was wrong. Neither of these super-sensitive, ignoramouses phased me in the least. Desperate, they go to your blogsite, knowing it's authored by a known low-life, scumbag, sexist, racist. I mean a real piece of trash. They know this piece of trash has filled his blogsite with lies and racial epithet and my own personal information (which may cause potential harm) and guess what? They shamelessly promote it! Meaning, Morgan and Loftus are just as trashie as you are. I love it! But I still haven't been phased. And it's driving Morgan and Loftus crazy that they're not getting on my nerves. But what's next guys? A bullet in my head. That'll phase me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. a. It's rather amusing to read persons posting under anonymous pseudonyms demand posting rights in a comments section of another blog.

    b. It is equally amusing to watch one of our morally upright and politically correct atheist friends suddenly turn into a homophobe when addressing Steve Hays. If you really believed what you say about us being the product of our genetic makeup, homosexuality being genetic, and morality being subjective, then why is it that you think calling somebody a homosexual a negative appellation?

    c. No blogger is required to open his blog to comments. FYI, Detective, Mr. Morgan does not allow Christians to leave comments on his blog, so what you want Mr. Walton to do, your own Mr. Morgan refuses. He allows those who agree with him to post comments, but not those who disagree. He considers this evangelism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No blogger is required to open his blog to comments. FYI, Detective, Mr. Morgan does not allow Christians to leave comments on his blog, so what you want Mr. Walton to do, your own Mr. Morgan refuses. He allows those who agree with him to post comments, but not those who disagree. He considers this evangelism.

    That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one. Just go to my blog and read any of the 48 Haloscan comments on the post about Frank.

    You must consider lying evangelism?

    It's "faze", Frank.

    ReplyDelete
  18. On a related note, any of you can feel free to comment on any post, I welcome intelligent feedback, and even unintelligent rants by trolls...

    Recent ones which may catch your interest the most:
    1) On Abortion and Ethics
    2) Luther and Nazism
    3) Death of God versus Death of Godlessness
    4) Some Thoughts on Religiosity
    5) Bakunin on God

    I'm sure you could all find some way to disagree with me, without lying as Gene did, and thus possibly counter-evangelize?

    ReplyDelete
  19. genembridges: No blogger is required to open his blog to comments. FYI, Detective, Mr. Morgan does not allow Christians to leave comments on his blog, so what you want Mr. Walton to do, your own Mr. Morgan refuses. He allows those who agree with him to post comments, but not those who disagree. He considers this evangelism.

    Daniel "the coward" Morgan: That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one.

    Frank Walton: LOL, Now that's a lie. And even more demonstrably illustrated. Mr. Bridges is not talking about your personal blog, Danny. He's talking about the "outofchristianity" blog. You know the blog where you didn't allow me to make my comment? You yourself told me:

    I know this will be difficult for you, but do try to read the "Commenting Guidelines" to help you understand why your comment was rejected...

    Get it, now? Now why don't you make the phase to these new blogs I have on you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. All,

    Perhaps Gene's use of "on his blog" makes me out to be the liar, and not Gene?

    If Gene meant "on the outofchristianity blog", which is not mine, but Aaron Rossetti's, then he should clarify his point.

    And perhaps he'll want to retract and replace the name "Aaron" for "Mr. Morgan", since I don't set the moderation policy at Aaron's site.

    While I am sure Gene needs defending, I would think he doesn't need it from the likes of Frank W. No, I won't be "phasing" over to his blog, and as Frank may or may not have noted, I haven't visited it today, and don't intend to ever deign myself to do so again...it's like a mental quicksand pit which sucks the IQ from your head.

    Perhaps Frank's reading comprehension, and Gene's presumption on the matter, proved as shallow as could be predicted, in that their equivocation of the outofchristianity blog as my blog, when it was clearly and explicitly stated to the contrary, was not understood?

    Aaron's policy on commenting is his own, as I clearly stated in the emails to Frank and in the page near the top.

    QUOTE:
    Aaron made it clear that he does not want any attempts at evangelism within his forum. It is more "support group" than "invite to apologists"... as if you and yours don't have enough places to graze for that...Aaron does not consider himself a "debater" nor his blog a "debate forum" and thus your puerile attempts at getting him into a debate with Gene Cook are silly. Aren't there enough unbelievers out there for you to waste your miserable life arguing with?

    Was this so hard for you to understand, Frank? Gene? It's Aaron's site, his policy, his decision.

    My own comment policy is simple: wide open. Gratuitous insults and threats will of course run out my patience eventually, but so long as the person has something of substance to say, I will leave it alone.

    Therefore, yes, Gene told an untruth. Perhaps he was mistaken, but he still told a lie. That is not my policy, and that is not my site. He said both were. If he just apologizes and retracts, then he can save face. Obviously, Frank not only lost his long ago, he keeps it private while calling others cowards. It breaks even my high-tech irony meter.

    Yes, I helped Aaron set up the HTML for his site, and submitted my own testimonial/deconversion account. I did not set his policy on moderation. I am one of three moderators. I follow Aaron's policy, I am not the author of it.

    The same logic in holding me accountable for his policy is a demonstration of the mental prowess that keeps you all within the Christian belief system.

    Thus, Frank Walton is still the same imbecile, and Gene's presumption was still wrong, should he even have made it "in good faith".

    It's still a lie, even if one based on a mistaken presumption rather than of knowing malice. Gene should not have referred to "Mr. Morgan...on his blog...Mr. Morgan refuses" when he should have referred to "Aaron...on outofchristianity.blogspot.com...Aaron refuses policy".

    Ergo, the mistakes are his, yet, for whatever reason, here I am defending myself from a lie and an imbecile who tries to make it right. I can forgive Gene's mistaken presumption, but the malicious sort of ignorance Frank displays is intolerable--he was already told this...and yet he defends a lie. And, he won't show his face on his site, nor divulge his location, while I have done both, and he calls me a coward. Oh, the irony...

    Poor b-----d.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey, when have any of you bastards saved a soul?

    I'd like to know the story.

    You guys are off track big time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. When someone misunderstands something that necessarily means it's a deliberate lie? Last I heard, telling a lie is knowing it ain't true, not misunderstanding something to be the case. *ROLLS EYES* Looks like Danny misunderstood a definition. So Danny, are you telling a lie then?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey Steve, Check this out.

    Grant's personal life was complicated, involving five marriages and speculation about his sexuality.

    In 1932 he met fellow actor Randolph Scott on the set of Hot Saturday, and the two shared a rented beach house (known as "Bachelor Hall") on and off for twelve years. Rumors ran rampant at the time that Grant and Scott were lovers.

    Authors Marc Elliot, Charles Higham and Roy Moseley consider Grant to have been bisexual, with Higham and Moseley claiming that Grant and Scott were seen kissing in a public carpark outside a social function both attended in the 1960s. In his book, Hollywood Gays, Boze Hadleigh cites an interview with homosexual director George Cukor who said about the alleged homosexual relationship between Scott and Grant: "Oh, Cary won't talk about it. At most, he'll say they did some wonderful pictures together. But Randolph will admit it – to a friend."

    According to screenwriter Arthur Laurents, Grant was "at best bisexual". William J. Mann's book, Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, recounts how photographer Jerome Zerbe spent "three gay months" (his words) in the movie colony taking many photographs of Grant and Scott, "attesting to their involvement in the gay scene." Zerbe says that he often stayed with the two actors, "finding them both warm, charming, and happy."

    In his book, Brando Unzipped (2006), Darwin Porter paints Marlon Brando as a prize lothario, romping his way through Hollywood with the biggest names, both male and female. He claims that Brando had a homosexual affair with Cary Grant.

    Many writers seem to have no doubt about the actor's bisexuality. Although Grant had many gay friends, including William Haines and Australian artist Orry-Kelly, he never outed himself. Will Hays, author of the Hays Code which censored "indecent" references in films, including references to homosexuality, admitted to keeping a "Doom Book" of actors he considered "unsafe" because of their personal lives.[1] As gay film director James Whale discovered, being named on Hays's list could instantly end your career. When Chevy Chase joked about Grant being gay in a television interview with Tom Snyder in 1980 ("Oh, what a gal!") Grant sued him and won.

    Grant was the first actor to use the word "gay" (meaning homosexual) on screen, in an ad-lib during a take for "Bringing up Baby" (1938), that was kept in the film. Its meaning was not fully grasped by censors and so it slipped by the Hays code. In the scene Grant appears in a pink dressing gown, telling an incredulous observer, "Because I just went gay, all of the sudden!" The script initially had Grant saying, "I suppose you think its odd, my wearing this. I realise it looks odd. I don't usually ... I mean, I don't own one of these." However Grant ad-libbed with a line of his own.

    Grant's first wife was actress Virginia Cherrill. They married on February 10, 1934, and divorced just over a year later on 26 March 1935.

    After becoming a naturalized citizen of the U.S. in 1942, he married socialite Barbara Hutton, becoming a surrogate father and lifelong influence on her son, Lance Reventlow. They divorced in 1945.

    Grant's third wife was actress and writer Betsy Drake. This was his longest marriage (December 25, 1949 - August 14, 1962). In the early '60s Grant related how treatment with LSD at a prestigious California clinic — legal at the time — had finally brought him inner peace after yoga, hypnotism, and mysticism had proved ineffective.

    His fourth marriage, to actress Dyan Cannon, on July 22, 1965, in Las Vegas, resulted in the birth of his only child, Jennifer, when he was 62. The marriage was troubled from the beginning (Grant was 61 and Cannon was 28), and they separated within 18 months, with Cannon claiming that Grant spanked her for disobeying him. The divorce, finalized on May 28, 1967, was bitter and messy, and the custody disputes over their daughter went on for years.

    Grant married British hotel PR agent Barbara Harris (47 years his junior), on April 11, 1981, a marriage which lasted until his death.

    In 1986 Grant's cremated ashes were given to his family.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow I didn't know Cray Grant was married to Dyan Cannon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey Gene,
    What's the point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have no reason (or want) to get in the middle of the feud between Frank Walton and his critics, but as a Christian I want to point out one error of the above article.

    Steve posted, “By contrast, Walton’s critics delete commenters who disagree with them.”

    This is untrue. I have posted comments about my faith in Christ and God on several articles over at Debunking Christianity and on Daniel Morgan’s website (as well as personal emails) and my comments have not been deleted. In fact my arguments have been responded to with honesty and integrity. To my knowledge none of the Walton critics have personally attacked my character and they most certainly have not deleted my comments even though I have questioned their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You know something, I'll hand it to you triablogue guys, you DO allow comments to be posted, and you even allow stupid ones like mine. I'll get off your backs now, and Steve, I don't really think you're gay, but I really think Cary Grant is "iffy" as far as him being gay.
    Not that I care about being gay or not, I just know it's irritating.

    So I'll back off trolling you guys.

    Take care, and be nice to one another.

    Frank on the other hand...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh I forgot, you can post on therealfrankwalton, and I won't take it down.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So Frank I guess I'll see you at your next blog/site/discussion forum/whatever trying to disrupt and be an ass, see yah then.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Okay, bye, THE DETECTIVE.

    Jeremy, Dan Morgan... I mean, Aaron Rossetti... didn't allow my refutation in their "Out of Christianity" blog (not the "Debunking Christianity" and "Daniel Morgan" blog). Look at my previous posts here at Triablogue. Dan Morgan sent me an e-mail stating why they didn't allow it. Of course they say my refutations are nothing but personal attacks so they deleted it. Figures, huh? Why couldn't they just leave my comment then and have people judge for themselves if it was just personal attacks?

    Anyway, hope that helps,

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey I didn't mean I was leaving you presumptive bastard!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Stop it now, both of, it's way past your bedtime.

    ReplyDelete
  33. this report is fantastic, the infomation you show us is really interesting and is good written. Do you want to see something more? Look: this is a good page, you can visit too:legal buds must as objective Review the legal state of the medicinal use of marijuana in the United States.Federal and state laws were examined on medicinal use of legal buds.The pertinent drugs based on canabinoides were reviewed. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and cases at level were evaluated federal name that they involve medicinal use of legal buds.
    Head Shop, Herbal Grinders
    Bongs, Glass Pipe. Visit us for more info at: http://www.headshopinternational.com/

    ReplyDelete
  34. Walton is a fraud that cannot follow up on his arguments.

    win

    ReplyDelete
  35. Just to let you guys know I decided to put the post back up. Here it is. So, sue me, Danny.

    ReplyDelete