Vegetarian Discussion: "Plant Rights" - The Loons Said It Couldn't Happen, But...

"Plant Rights" - The Loons Said It Couldn't Happen, But...
Posts: 99

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-12-05 12:40:26 EST
The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
Get ready for 'plant rights.'
by Wesley J. Smith

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
acting arbitrarily."

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
(apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
The report states, opaquely:

At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
themselves</i>.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp

Tartarus
2008-12-05 12:48:53 EST
On Dec 5, 10:40 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
> by Wesley J. Smith
>
> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>
> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>
> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
> for their own sake because they are alive."

This discrimination against inanimate objects must stop NOW!!!

Biocentricity is an evil that will cause future generations regret. It
is a disgusting and backwards notion.



Tartarus


D*@.
2008-12-07 11:14:28 EST
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:48:53 -0800 (PST), Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com> wrote:

>On Dec 5, 10:40 am, Goo wrote:
>
>> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
>> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
>> by Wesley J. Smith
>>
>> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
>> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
>> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
>> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>>
>> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
>> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
>> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
>> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
>> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
>> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>>
>> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
>> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
>> for their own sake because they are alive."
>
>This discrimination against inanimate objects must stop NOW!!!
>
>Biocentricity is an evil that will cause future generations regret. It
>is a disgusting and backwards notion.
>
>Tartarus

Misnomer advocates are moving in that direction:

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals." - Newkirk

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but
empty cages." - Regan

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals." - Regan

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." - Newkirk

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." - Bryant

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." - Bryant

Kickin' Ass & Takin' Names
2008-12-07 14:20:52 EST
On Dec 5, 12:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
> by Wesley J. Smith
>
> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>
> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>
> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
> for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
> that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
> that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
> not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
> danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
> acting arbitrarily."
>
> The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
> (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
> feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
> home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
> panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
> The report states, opaquely:
>
> At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
> because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
> other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
> themselves</i>.
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065...

Does this mean I can't mow my lawn and prune my roses and fruit
trees?? How about if I apply an anesthetic to the grass or the trees
before surgery??


Pyjamarama
2008-12-07 14:27:12 EST
On Dec 5, 9:40 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
> by Wesley J. Smith
>
> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>
> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>
> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
> for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
> that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
> that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
> not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
> danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
> acting arbitrarily."
>
> The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
> (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
> feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
> home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
> panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
> The report states, opaquely:
>
> At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
> because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
> other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
> themselves</i>.
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065...

So in the view of the far left, a stalk of corn is afforded more
compassion and granted more rights than a partially delivered human
infant...

Or in Obama's now infamous case, a fully delivered child.

He sure didn't vote "present" on that bill, did he?


Branson Hunter
2008-12-07 14:52:10 EST
pyjamarama wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:40 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
>> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
>> by Wesley J. Smith
>>
>> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
>> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
>> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
>> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>>
>> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
>> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
>> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
>> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
>> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
>> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>>
>> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
>> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
>> for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
>> that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
>> that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
>> not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
>> danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
>> acting arbitrarily."
>>
>> The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
>> (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
>> feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
>> home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
>> panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
>> The report states, opaquely:
>>
>> At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
>> because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
>> other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
>> themselves</i>.
>>
>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065...
>
> So in the view of the far left, a stalk of corn is afforded more
> compassion and granted more rights than a partially delivered human
> infant...
>
> Or in Obama's now infamous case, a fully delivered child.

What's that about?


> He sure didn't vote "present" on that bill, did he?
>

Wayne
2008-12-07 16:20:18 EST

"Kickin' Ass & Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e19e7da-175c-4be1-bfee-0a14e0c4e9c7@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 12:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
> by Wesley J. Smith
>
> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>
> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the
> brain.
>
> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
> for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
> that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
> that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
> not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
> danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
> acting arbitrarily."
>
> The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
> (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
> feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
> home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
> panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
> The report states, opaquely:
>
> At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
> because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
> other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
> themselves</i>.
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065...

Does this mean I can't mow my lawn and prune my roses and fruit
trees?? How about if I apply an anesthetic to the grass or the trees
before surgery??
**********************
I think you should do that to be safe.
Also, the CA prop 8 opponents are standing in line to crank up plant
"marriages"...after all..."they have rights, don't they"




Pyjamarama
2008-12-07 18:56:08 EST
On Dec 7, 11:52 am, Branson Hunter <bh2322@i'm_a_zero.net> wrote:
> pyjamarama wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 9:40 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
> >> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
> >> by Wesley J. Smith
>
> >> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
> >> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
> >> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
> >> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>
> >> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
> >> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
> >> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
> >> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
> >> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
> >> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>
> >> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
> >> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
> >> for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
> >> that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
> >> that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
> >> not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
> >> danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
> >> acting arbitrarily."
>
> >> The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
> >> (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
> >> feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
> >> home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
> >> panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
> >> The report states, opaquely:
>
> >> At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
> >> because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
> >> other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
> >> themselves</i>.
>
> >>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065...
>
> > So in the view of the far left, a stalk of corn is afforded more
> > compassion and granted more rights than a partially delivered human
> > infant...
>
> > Or in Obama's now infamous case, a fully delivered child.
>
> What's that about?
>
>
>
> > He sure didn't vote "present" on that bill, did he?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzRhZTgzNmRlZWE0MTA1YTM4NWMxN2UxMjA5YjBkZTE=

Rupert
2008-12-07 22:30:59 EST
On Dec 8, 3:27 am, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:40 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
> > Get ready for 'plant rights.'
> > by Wesley J. Smith
>
> > You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
> > ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
> > the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
> > concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>
> > A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
> > provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
> > handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
> > it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
> > Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
> > Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>
> > A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
> > moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
> > for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
> > that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
> > that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
> > not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
> > danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
> > acting arbitrarily."
>
> > The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
> > (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
> > feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
> > home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
> > panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
> > The report states, opaquely:
>
> > At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
> > because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
> > other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
> > themselves</i>.
>
> >http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065...
>
> So in the view of the far left, a stalk of corn is afforded more
> compassion and granted more rights than a partially delivered human
> infant...
>
> Or in Obama's now infamous case, a fully delivered child.
>
> He sure didn't vote "present" on that bill, did he?

First of all, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about this
you should look at the actual report:

http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf

It's idiotic to lump a whole bunch of opinions together and call them
the views of the "far left". If there's someone who combines a pro-
choice position with a view that plants have inherent worth, let's
hear about that person and look at how he or she tries to defend his
or her position.

Instead of engaging in idiotic stereotypes about the "far left", you
should look at what individual people actually say.

D*@.
2008-12-08 10:51:48 EST
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:56:08 -0800 (PST), pyjamarama <pyjamarama76@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Dec 7, 11:52 am, Branson Hunter <bh2322@i'm_a_zero.net> wrote:
>> pyjamarama wrote:
>> > On Dec 5, 9:40 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> >> The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
>> >> Get ready for 'plant rights.'
>> >> by Wesley J. Smith
>>
>> >> You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an
>> >> ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
>> >> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The
>> >> concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
>>
>> >> A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a
>> >> provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when
>> >> handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what
>> >> it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human
>> >> Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of
>> >> Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
>>
>> >> A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric"
>> >> moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally
>> >> for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined
>> >> that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover,
>> >> that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may
>> >> not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in
>> >> danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not
>> >> acting arbitrarily."
>>
>> >> The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field
>> >> (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to
>> >> feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking
>> >> home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The
>> >> panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why.
>> >> The report states, opaquely:
>>
>> >> At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned
>> >> because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward
>> >> other organisms or because something bad is being done <i>to the flowers
>> >> themselves</i>.
>>
>> >>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065...
>>
>> > So in the view of the far left, a stalk of corn is afforded more
>> > compassion and granted more rights than a partially delivered human
>> > infant...
>>
>> > Or in Obama's now infamous case, a fully delivered child.
>>
>> What's that about?
. . .
>http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzRhZTgzNmRlZWE0MTA1YTM4NWMxN2UxMjA5YjBkZTE=

_________________________________________________________
Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide
More important to protect abortion doctors than “that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it.”

By Andrew C. McCarthy

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so
touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist
can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help
. . .
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
That's where the problem is. The mother does not want it. But if those
who do would make arrangements then there would be less abortion.
"Our" help is a hollow misnomer unless those who offer to give it will actually
give it. But if they did, then why wouldn't the mother just have the child and
then give it to those who want it? If it's all that important to an anti-abortionist
they should be able to pay the mother to carry the being until it's developed
enough to let them have it, so they can raise it themselves and give it the
help it will certainly need and they pretend to offer.

Keep in mind there are already more than enough people, and the number
of abortions is sometimes higher than the number of births, like in Russia.
How quickly do you want to double the population? How often do you want
to do it, or even come close?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron