General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Mark Probert Still lying

Started by Jan · · Last activity · 83 posts · 1,663 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
17 April 2004
Last activity
23 April 2004
Original author
Jan
Posts
83
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,663
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 83
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Sadly, someone moved her rock and "DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]>
    slithered out and wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    << I didn't lie, therefore they cannot.
    Nor has Cell Tech ever contended that I lied.
    Only Jan has done that. >>

    So, Thorson, if I take your latest post, and send it to Cell Tech, they


    will be

    Quoted message said:

    able to confirm you did not lie? If this is true, then can this be


    settled

    Quoted message said:

    once and for all?

    "If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie


    Winchester).

    Quoted message said:
  2. Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]

    Do you have anything to post which contradicts what I said?

    Yes, my post did just that.

    But that post did not include an ORIGINAL statement
    made by me which is a LIE.

    Just saying you have something which contradicts what I said
    is not the same thing as having it.

    If you have it, post it so everybody can see what is this
    statement which I made which is a LIE.

    Why don't you do that, Jan?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Cell Tech has not alleged that I lied in any of my previous statements.

    They said mis-statement.

    to state incorrectly : give a false account of

    That's the same thing as lying, and each time you post you did not lie, you lie
    again. Then show more dishonesty sending my truthful post to alt test.

    The End.

    Jan

    You persist in acusing me of LYING,
    but you have not shown EVEN ONE example of
    a statement I made which is false, much less a LIE.

    Why don't you post an example, Jan? Then everybody
    could see for themselves what one of these statements
    looks like, and decide for themselves whether or not
    it was a LIE. Why don't you want people to do that, Jan?
    Why do you want to prevent people from reaching their
    own conclusions about whether anything I said was a LIE?

    Is it because any example you could choose would
    OBVIOUSLY NOT be a false statement? And then,
    people would see it was not me who makes LIES.

    Do you need help seeing what a LIE looks like, Jan?

    Here is an example:

    To see Jan's ORIGINAL POSTING, go here:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20040310000815.25804.00001173%40mb-m01.aol.com

    Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]

    Instead of responding to what you say, Jan is trying to discredit
    you by making insinuations about who you are or what your
    motives may be.

    Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the
    pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works.

    That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have NEVER accused


    anyone of

    Quoted message said:

    any such thing.

    So do prove your claim Mark!!!!!

    You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!!

    ----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid shills -----

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-fn.aol.com

    Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing starts. Mostly
    comes from paid shill Mark Probert.

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-fw.aol.com

    Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives off his wife.

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-ct.aol.com

    As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife.

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-mn.aol.com

    As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names when in fact
    he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his own people.

  3. DEBBEE1023 said:

    << I didn't lie, therefore they cannot.
    Nor has Cell Tech ever contended that I lied.
    Only Jan has done that. >>

    So, Thorson, if I take your latest post, and send it to Cell Tech, they
    will be able to confirm you did not lie? If this is true, then can this be
    settled once and for all?

    What did they say the previous time you did this?

    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20020625021917.16378.00000791%40mb-fz.aol.com

  4. "Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    DEBBEE1023 said:

    << I didn't lie, therefore they cannot.
    Nor has Cell Tech ever contended that I lied.
    Only Jan has done that. >>

    So, Thorson, if I take your latest post, and send it to Cell Tech, they
    will be able to confirm you did not lie? If this is true, then can this


    be

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    settled once and for all?

    What did they say the previous time you did this?


    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20020625021917.16378.00000791%40mb-fz.aol.com

    If I were Cell Tech, I would surely wish that Jan and Debbee would
    shut up about this subject. This must be a PR nightmare for them.
    Everytime Jan brings up this subject it gets broadcast worldwide
    and archived in thousands of places ready to be read by untold
    millions of readers. The percentage of people who come away
    with the impression of ingesting "pond scum" after reading this
    negative publicity must be staggering. Probably enough to cause
    stock to fall.
    You're doing a good job, Jan and Deb!
    Keep up the good work!

  5. "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    [...]

    Quoted message said:

    Mis-state

    to state incorrectly : give a false account of

    False

    intentionally untrue

    lie

    untrue with intent to deceive

    Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor and make
    spurious complaints to ISPs.

  6. Quoted message said:


    "Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    DEBBEE1023 said:

    << I didn't lie, therefore they cannot.
    Nor has Cell Tech ever contended that I lied.
    Only Jan has done that. >>

    So, Thorson, if I take your latest post, and send it to Cell Tech, they
    will be able to confirm you did not lie? If this is true, then can this


    be

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    settled once and for all?

    What did they say the previous time you did this?

    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20020625021917.16378.00000791%40mb-fz.a


    ol.com

    Quoted message said:


    If I were Cell Tech, I would surely wish that Jan and Debbee would
    shut up about this subject. This must be a PR nightmare for them.
    Everytime Jan brings up this subject it gets broadcast worldwide
    and archived in thousands of places ready to be read by untold
    millions of readers. The percentage of people who come away
    with the impression of ingesting "pond scum" after reading this
    negative publicity must be staggering. Probably enough to cause
    stock to fall.
    You're doing a good job, Jan and Deb!
    Keep up the good work!

    In all seriousness, I agree with you, but I wish you hadn't said it.
    Jan & Debbee are idiots, but I think they will begin to realize that you are
    correct.

  7. Nana Weedkiller said:

    Probably enough to cause
    stock to fall.

    Cell Tech stock has held steady at about $0.20/share
    for quite some time:

    http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/chart.jsp?symbol=EFLI&duration=2-6-9-0-0-560

  8. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Mark Probert Still lying
    From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 18, 2004" M.a.r.kP.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]
    Date: 4/18/2004 7:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: UPDATE Re: "Hulda Clark is a dangerous quack"
    From: "mdd" [email hidden]
    Date: 4/17/2004 12:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 17, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hulda is hiding out in Mexico, since she is subject to legal process in
    > California and the other 49 states.

    Hulda isn't hiding anywhere, she has an address and phone number, drivers
    license, well as tax returns from the IRS.

    Question:

    How does jan know these things

    Because I sat in court when the vultures were after her, their main point was
    she was hiding. Evidence was provided showing all of the above.

    Quoted message said:

    can she post proof?

    I'll overlook that; showing your stupidity.

    Quoted message said:

    BTW, note how she does not undersatand the concept of hiding out in Mexico,
    whefre the laws are lax, the the authorities can be bribed.

    B I N G O!!!!

    Careful you re telling on yourself and your ilk.

    Jan

  9. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Mark Still lying
    From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 18, 2004" M.a.r.kP.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]
    Date: 4/18/2004 7:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Mark Still lying
    From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]
    Date: 4/17/2004 7:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Jan wrote:

    > >From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]
    > >I didn't lie, therefore they cannot.
    > >Nor has Cell Tech ever contended that I lied.
    > >Only Jan has done that.
    >
    > WRONG.

    Do you have anything to post which contradicts what I said?

    Yes, my post did just that.

    Quoted message said:

    Cell Tech has not alleged that I lied in any of my previous statements.

    They said mis-statement.

    to state incorrectly : give a false account of

    That's the same thing as lying, and each time you post you did not lie,


    you lie

    Quoted message said:

    again.

    The, by that standard Hulda Clark is LIAR. However, you will not admit that
    she is, since your fingers would fall off.

    Diversion, this thread is about Mark still lying.

    Quoted message said:

    Then show more dishonesty sending my truthful post to alt test.

    Quoted message said:


    The End.

    Jan

    No remarks noted.

    Jan

  10. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Mark Still lying
    From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 18, 2004" M.a.r.kP.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]
    Date: 4/18/2004 7:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Mark Still lying
    From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
    Date: 4/17/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    [email hidden] (Jan) wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    > They said mis-statement.
    >
    > to state incorrectly : give a false account of
    >
    > That's the same thing as lying, and each time you post you did not
    > lie, you lie again. Then show more dishonesty sending my truthful post
    > to alt test.

    No, a misstatement is *not* the same thing as a lie. Lies are a
    *proper subset* of misstatements; specifically, they're misstatements


    made

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    by someone who *knows* that he's making a misstatement yet does so with


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    *intention* to deceive others

    That's exactly what Mark did. Read in the archives, he was told and told


    and

    Quoted message said:

    warned over and over.

    He may have been told, etc. but, he has the right to not beleive what he is
    being told until he is given proof.

    He was told and told and told and warned and warned and warned. He had the
    right to continue saying Cell Tech *deliberately* did not test. The warning
    didn't work, they had the right to do what they did.

    Quoted message said:

    When he was given the proof, he did the honorable thing.

    LOL. Do show us when and where he was given the proof, and just what is
    honorable about a retraction??

    Quoted message said:

    However, since you have no honor, you cannot understand
    that.

    Usual insult noted. Marla.

  11. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: JAN DREW Still lying
    From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]
    Date: 4/18/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]

    Do you have anything to post which contradicts what I said?

    Yes, my post did just that.

    But that post did not include an ORIGINAL statement
    made by me which is a LIE.

    Don't start as I don't need any original.

    What I posted shows your misstatments, and your use of the word *deliberate*
    and the fact you had no basis for the accusations you made.

    Repeated drivel snipped , plus the fact my honest reply went to alt test
    instead of here is all one needs to know.

    Give it up.

    Jan

  12. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Jan Drew Still lying
    From: [email hidden] (Sweet Ilsa9)
    Date: 4/18/2004 12:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    "Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    DEBBEE1023 wrote:

    > << I didn't lie, therefore they cannot.
    > Nor has Cell Tech ever contended that I lied.
    > Only Jan has done that. >>
    >
    > So, Thorson, if I take your latest post, and send it to Cell Tech, they
    > will be able to confirm you did not lie? If this is true, then can this


    be

    Quoted message said:

    > settled once and for all?

    What did they say the previous time you did this?

    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20020625021917.16378.00000791%40mb-fz.a


    ol.com

    Quoted message said:


    If I were Cell Tech, I would surely wish that Jan and Debbee would
    shut up about this subject. This must be a PR nightmare for them.
    Everytime Jan brings up this subject it gets broadcast worldwide
    and archived in thousands of places ready to be read by untold
    millions of readers. The percentage of people who come away
    with the impression of ingesting "pond scum" after reading this
    negative publicity must be staggering. Probably enough to cause
    stock to fall.
    You're doing a good job, Jan and Deb!
    Keep up the good work!

    Typical for Ted Nidiffer. He lies and says Jan brings it up. When infact it is
    Mark.

    However Cell Tech might be interested in knowing Ted is still calling it pond
    scum.

    Quoted message said:

    In all seriousness, I agree with you,

    LOLOLOL.

    Quoted message said:

    Jan & Debbee are idiots,

    And steaming bags of feces, pounding sand up one's ass, and deconstructing
    others, and lying about disharmonies and hiding under fake names.

    Poor lying Andrew.

    Jan

  13. Jan said:

    He had the
    right to continue saying Cell Tech *deliberately* did not test.

    What *exactly* did I say? Why are you so afraid
    to show people the ORIGINAL statement that I made?

    It's because no ORIGINAL statement I made was a lie,
    or even looks like a lie.

    Any statement you could choose would OBVIOUSLY NOT
    be a lie. Therefore, you'd be convicting yourself if you
    were to post an example of a statement I made which
    you allege is a lie.

  14. Quoted message said:

    From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]
    Date: 4/18/2004 4:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>


    Snip AGAIN the repeated that has been repeated repeatedly, and is EXACTY why
    Mark got in trouble with Cell Tech. He can't control this obsession, and needs
    help.

    Jan

  15. Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    But that post did not include an ORIGINAL statement
    made by me which is a LIE.

    Don't start as I don't need any original.

    Of course not. You just make a FALSE accusation
    of LYING, and when asked for an example of one
    of these LIES, you loudly claim to have killfiled
    the person asking for evidence.

    That's called being a despicable liar. You make
    accusations, but you NEVER back them up.

    Quoted message said:

    What I posted shows your misstatments, and your use of the word *deliberate*
    and the fact you had no basis for the accusations you made.

    Then it should be easy for you to find one of these lies.
    Just do a Google search using that as a keyword.

    But of course, you've already done that, and you KNOW
    that none of my statements using that word are lies.

    You KNOW your accusation against me is FALSE.

    That's what makes you a LIAR.

    Quoted message said:

    Repeated drivel snipped , plus the fact my honest reply went to alt test
    instead of here is all one needs to know.

    Give it up.

    Jan

    You'd love that. You'd love to be able to get away
    with your vile lies, without backing them up.

    Well, the world doesn't work that way.

    Your lies will follow you around like a shadow.

  16. Why don't you post an ORIGINAL STATEMENT made by me
    which is a LIE? That's what I'm asking for.

    Why don't you do that, Jan?

    You know what an ORIGINAL STATEMENT which is a LIE
    looks like, don't you Jan? Do I need to show you an example?

    To see Jan's ORIGINAL POSTING, go here:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20040310000815.25804.00001173%40mb-m01.aol.com

    Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]

    Instead of responding to what you say, Jan is trying to discredit
    you by making insinuations about who you are or what your
    motives may be.

    Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the
    pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works.

    That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have NEVER accused


    anyone of

    Quoted message said:

    any such thing.

    So do prove your claim Mark!!!!!

    You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!!

    ----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid shills -----

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-fn.aol.com

    Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing starts. Mostly
    comes from paid shill Mark Probert.

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-fw.aol.com

    Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives off his wife.

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-ct.aol.com

    As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife.

    Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-mn.aol.com

    As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names when in fact
    he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his own people.

  17. Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    But that post did not include an ORIGINAL statement
    made by me which is a LIE.

    Don't start as I don't need any original.

    Of course not. You just make a FALSE accusation
    of LYING, and when asked for an example of one
    of these LIES, you loudly claim to have killfiled
    the person asking for evidence.

    That's called being a despicable liar. You make
    accusations, but you NEVER back them up.

    Quoted message said:

    What I posted shows your misstatments, and your use of the word *deliberate*
    and the fact you had no basis for the accusations you made.

    Then it should be easy for you to find one of these lies.
    Just do a Google search using that as a keyword.

    But of course, you've already done that, and you KNOW
    that none of my statements using that word are lies.

    You KNOW your accusation against me is FALSE.

    That's what makes you a LIAR.

    Quoted message said:

    Repeated drivel snipped , plus the fact my honest reply went to alt test
    instead of here is all one needs to know.

    Give it up.

    Jan

    You'd love that. You'd love to be able to get away
    with your vile lies, without backing them up.

    Well, the world doesn't work that way.

    Your lies will follow you around like a shadow.

  18. March 9th.

    http://tinyurl.com/39bym

  19. "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Mark Probert Still lying
    From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 18, 2004" M.a.r.kP.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]
    Date: 4/18/2004 7:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    >Subject: Re: UPDATE Re: "Hulda Clark is a dangerous quack"
    >From: "mdd" [email hidden]
    >Date: 4/17/2004 12:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email hidden]>
    >
    >
    >"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 17, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
    >[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >news:[email hidden]...

    > Hulda is hiding out in Mexico, since she is subject to legal process


    in

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> California and the other 49 states.

    Hulda isn't hiding anywhere, she has an address and phone number,


    drivers

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    license, well as tax returns from the IRS.

    Question:

    How does jan know these things

    Because I sat in court when the vultures were after her, their main point


    was

    Quoted message said:

    she was hiding. Evidence was provided showing all of the above.

    That was a few years ago. What is she doing in Mexico NOW?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    can she post proof?

    I'll overlook that; showing your stupidity.

    Of course you wil overlook that, as you cannot prove that she is not hiding
    out in Mexico.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    BTW, note how she does not undersatand the concept of hiding out in


    Mexico,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    whefre the laws are lax, the the authorities can be bribed.

    B I N G O!!!!

    Yes, BINGO. That is the exact point.

    Quoted message said:

    Careful you re telling on yourself and your ilk.

    Nope. Why is she hiding out in Mexico where the laws are lax? Hmmm??? Why
    won't she open a clinic in the USA?

    Quoted message said:

    Jan

  20. "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Mark Still lying
    From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 18, 2004" M.a.r.kP.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]
    Date: 4/18/2004 7:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    >Subject: Re: Mark Still lying
    >From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
    >Date: 4/17/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email hidden]>
    >
    >[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in
    >news:[email hidden]:
    >
    >> They said mis-statement.
    >>
    >> to state incorrectly : give a false account of
    >>
    >> That's the same thing as lying, and each time you post you did not
    >> lie, you lie again. Then show more dishonesty sending my truthful


    post

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> to alt test.
    >
    >No, a misstatement is *not* the same thing as a lie. Lies are a
    >*proper subset* of misstatements; specifically, they're misstatements


    made

    Quoted message said:

    >by someone who *knows* that he's making a misstatement yet does so


    with

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the

    Quoted message said:

    >*intention* to deceive others

    That's exactly what Mark did. Read in the archives, he was told and


    told

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and

    Quoted message said:

    warned over and over.

    He may have been told, etc. but, he has the right to not beleive what he


    is

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    being told until he is given proof.

    He was told and told and told and warned and warned and warned.

    By CellTech?

    He had the

    Quoted message said:

    right to continue saying Cell Tech *deliberately* did not test.

    Until he was provided proof to the contrary, that is correct. He had the
    right to continue saying that.

    The warning

    Quoted message said:

    didn't work, they had the right to do what they did.

    Do you have a copy of the warning? (I looked a while back, but never found
    it.)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    When he was given the proof, he did the honorable thing.

    LOL. Do show us when and where he was given the proof, and just what is
    honorable about a retraction??

    Obviously, explaining honor to you in this curcumstance is as useful as
    explaining honor to a paramecium.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    However, since you have no honor, you cannot understand
    that.

    Usual insult noted. Marla.

    Nope. Just pointing out, in advance, that you would not understand my point.

    And, you did not understand my point.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.