Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:08 am

Doesn't SCUS have the power to take up cases on it's own initiative? Or does it really have to wait for a case to make its way to SCUS?
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:24 am

Nooska wrote:Doesn't SCUS have the power to take up cases on it's own initiative? Or does it really have to wait for a case to make its way to SCUS?
They do have the power, but typically don't use it. That said, a law doesn't have to reach the Supreme court to be thrown out. If a lower circuit court throws it out, then for that jurisdiction it's thrown out, and other circuits will inevitably follow, so what typically happens in that case is that the bill's supporters try to escalate the case up the chain, not the people trying to throw it out.

fuzzygeek wrote:
Sabindeus wrote:
fuzzygeek wrote:Should women be left out of men's issues legislation?

Such as?

Does it matter?

Indeed, it's a silly idea for almost any legislation. It's even more silly in this case because it's not allowing representation for the babies who are being killed. Besides, as I've pointed out repeatedly, Klaud is a total hypocrite on this issue since he is also in favor of telling a woman what to do with her uterus post 24 weeks gestation.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby aureon » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:38 am

Actually, Klaud's was an opinion, and he did not want to force it as law /sigh
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:11 am

I can see where Fridmarr is coming from as I've mentioned that I find abortion iffy on the pregnancy stages where the product is viable. So yeah, I guess I am a hypocrite on that part.

On the other hand, not sure if I am a hypocrite on the opinion that actual abortion legislation should be in the hand of women and not old white rich dudes (which is a term he has bristled at in the past -- and which I find amusing).

I think my opinion on abortion itself is irrelevant in the end, but not on who should be in charge of the legislation.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:23 am

Yeah I asked you specifically if they should be illegal at any point and you said at viability. Yes, I "bristle" at racist and sexist remarks...go figure.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:45 am

My stance on when it should be illegal is irrelevant because I should not be in charge of determining the laws on abortion. Women with medical and scientific degrees should.

And, unless I'm mistaken, the majority if the people trumpeting for limiting abortion, and in charge of legislation, are people that are old, white, rich and male.

Example:
Dewhurst? White, Rich, Male, Old.
Perry? White, Rich, Male, Old.

Not sure if calling a duck a duck is racist.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:18 am

Klaudandus wrote:My stance on when it should be illegal is irrelevant because I should not be in charge of determining the laws on abortion. Women with medical and scientific degrees should.

And, unless I'm mistaken, the majority if the people trumpeting for limiting abortion, and in charge of legislation, are people that are old, white, rich and male.

Example:
Dewhurst? White, Rich, Male, Old.
Perry? White, Rich, Male, Old.

Not sure if calling a duck a duck is racist.


Actually something like 70% of the population wants abortion limited into the second trimester (this particular legislation kicks in at 20 weeks) and it goes up from there.

However, to your specific point. You aren't merely saying that Perry is an old, rich, white man, you are saying his opinion shouldn't count because he's a rich, old, white man, big difference.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:28 am

I'm not the one that is discounting his opinion. They're the ones discounting the opinion of women. They're the ones with the uterus after all.

I'd say when it comes to these kind of issues, they should listen to the people affected by it to begin with.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:37 am

By saying he shouldn't have a vote based on his gender, you are.

The impetus behind this legislation is some controversial research indicating that the baby can feel pain around 20 weeks. I don't think there's any reason to believe having a uterus makes someone more qualified in determining biologic attributes of a fetus. The logic around the whole uterus thing is a red herring and always has been.

You keep saying the "people affected" but keep ignoring the babies.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:50 am

There needs to be more conclusive data on that before going all knee-jerky about it.

The problem is not just abortion itself, some are going beyond that and trying to make miscarriages and stillbirths a criminal offense.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/ ... ty-georgia
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... to-police/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... nslaughter

Obligatory motherjones/thinkprogress grain-of-salt aside, I still see men being the ones pushing for this kind of stuff on women.

And threading back into abortion. Again, it should be something in the hands of women to push for anything relating to abortion and its legislation.

As it is, it would be like women pushing for legislation for what we can or cannot do with our testes.

Not sure how I ignore the baby though as you called me hypocrite for saying I personally feel that abortion should be restricted once the product is viable.


All things aside, I want to make things clear -- I got no animosity towards you. I love debating and I can treat people equally nice regardless even if we strongly disagree on certain philosophical points.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Snake-Aes » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:52 am

That does go back to defining what is a person
Klaudandus wrote:As it is, it would be like women pushing for legislation for what we can or cannot do with our testes.
This particular logic isn't very useful, because men aren't in control of their testicles no more than a woman is in control of her uterus.
It's all a set of biological functions over which no one really has control. So even before questioning the validity of discriminating votes you have to question the validity of the logic itself.
Image
I am not allowed to seduce the abyssal's lunar mate.
User avatar
Snake-Aes
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 10096
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:15 am
Location: Thorns

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:55 am

Snake-Aes wrote:That does go back to defining what is a person
Klaudandus wrote:As it is, it would be like women pushing for legislation for what we can or cannot do with our testes.
This particular logic isn't very useful, because men aren't in control of their testicles no more than a woman is in control of their uterus.
It's all a set of biological functions over which no one really has control. So even before questioning the validity of discriminating votes you have to question the validity of the logic itself.


Touche.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:16 pm

Klaud, you are all over the place, playing multiple sides of the same argument...
When asked at what point you'd make abortion illegal you said:
Klaudandus wrote:Once past the point of no return -- AKA -- viability

Now you say:
Klaudandus wrote:My stance on when it should be illegal is irrelevant because I should not be in charge of determining the laws on abortion. Women with medical and scientific degrees should.

But then try to deflect criticism of that position, which ignores the fetus, by falling back to your previous position:
Klaudandus wrote:Not sure how I ignore the baby though as you called me hypocrite for saying I personally feel that abortion should be restricted once the product is viable.
You've got to pick one.

Your summary of the links you posted is intellectually dishonest, and that's even beyond the spin that the articles themselves are using. There is zero chance that a miscarriage will be crime, but purposely or negligently causing a "miscarriage" of a near term baby is an entirely different matter. To equate those for a political point is some really sick spin.

On the opposite end of the spectrum there was a woman (who had a previous criminal record) arrested and convicted for manslaughter after stabbing her boyfriend. She was attempting to defend her baby, as she was pregnant and he was purposely punching her in the stomach in an attempt to abort it. Sadly, she was not allowed to mention that she was defending her baby in court, the judge had ruled that the fetus being a non a person is not allowed such a defense, so the jury ruled that her use of force was not warranted. I believe she got a higher court to overturn her conviction later. I only bring this up to point out that it would be equally unfair for me to suggest that judges are trying criminalize women who protect their unborn without full context, as it is to suggest that legislators are seriously trying to make miscarriages illegal without the full context.

All of this though is pretty irrelevant to whether or not only women should be allowed to have a say in abortion legislation. It's merely a distracting digression.

Klaudandus wrote:There needs to be more conclusive data on that before going all knee-jerky about it.
That's a great argument, too bad you chose instead to attack him based on his age, wealth, race, and gender instead of on the basis of his argument. Look, I get that you may not have been aware of the premise of the legislation, the main stream media rarely mentioned it (for obvious reasons), but discounting his opinion because he's an old, rich, white, dude is pretty sad, and trying to reflect that back on him to suggest he's ignoring women is even worse. If you want to disagree with the research or the implementation of that into law great! Let's just do that instead of the whole sexist, racist thing.

Kluadandus wrote:All things aside, I want to make things clear -- I got no animosity towards you. I love debating and I can treat people equally nice regardless even if we strongly disagree on certain philosophical points.
We've covered this a few times in this thread, but you're right to bring it up again. Political disagreements are just that, particularly on an internet forum. There are no ill feelings or loss of respect involved, people are obviously going to disagree on sensitive issues, or they wouldn't be sensitive. If we can't have these discussions without getting angry or personal, then we are lost.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:16 pm

Not sure what's so strange about me saying when I think abortion should be illegal... when I clearly state that I should not be in charge of deciding when it should be legal or illegal -- Cuz I clearly say that such legislation should be in the hands of women in the first place -- therefore making my own personal opinion moot.

If a bunch of medical women say that abortion should be limited to the first 20 weeks, then I'll shut up, cuz at least its something brought up by women.

However, seeing the Wendy Davis filibuster, I guess its pretty safe to assume its something women do not want.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:27 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Not sure what's so strange about me saying when I think abortion should be illegal... when I clearly state that I should not be in charge of deciding when it should be legal or illegal -- Cuz I clearly say that such legislation should be in the hands of women in the first place -- therefore making my own personal opinion moot.

If a bunch of medical women say that abortion should be limited to the first 20 weeks, then I'll shut up, cuz at least its something brought up by women.

However, seeing the Wendy Davis filibuster, I guess its pretty safe to assume its something women do not want.

Actually plenty do. I'm sure most women don't know who Wendy Davis is.

The strange part is then trying use the third item I posted, that you didn't mention in this post. You believe women should have sole say (now it's only medical women, which is making less and less sense), based on the premise that the legislation only affects them, ignoring that it also certainly affects the life being terminated.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:49 pm

All I want is for them to take a more prominent role in the drafting of such legislation. Something they don't really get.

you seem to think that women are pretty well represented in this debate. of course, seeing how the filibuster ended, I'd disagree.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:20 am

They don't? Based on what data? Surely not solely based on something as ridiculously anecdotal as the Wendy Davis filibuster? Are you suggesting that only women can properly represent women on this issue? If so, then which women. Is it all women, those just the "medical women" you mentioned earlier, or women who've had kids, or women who've had abortions, or women who have never been pregnant at all? What about (gasp) Christian women...does their opinion count? I'm very curious as to the specifics on this.

Now that we are moving on to representation, I have no clue how you could have surmised my position, since it's never come up before, but honestly I really don't know. I can't say I've got my finger on the pulse of these various slices of women in Texas and how they might feel about the issue. I'm guessing, since nationwide abortions after twenty weeks poll really really low (and that was before this research) that in Texas it's likely to be at least a little bit lower, that it's entirely possible that such representation should be, by your own definition, insufficient to defeat this bill, but then I don't know which slice of women you consider valid and those who shouldn't have a say.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:01 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:However, seeing the Wendy Davis filibuster, I guess its pretty safe to assume its something women do not want.

Actually plenty do. I'm sure most women don't know who Wendy Davis is.


Fridmarr wrote:Now that we are moving on to representation, I have no clue how you could have surmised my position, since it's never come up before, but honestly I really don't know. I can't say I've got my finger on the pulse of these various slices of women in Texas and how they might feel about the issue.


Make your mind up. Do you know where women stand on the issue or not?

I mean, you keep saying that women are in favour of the bill, but you haven't tried to point to any examples, just kept pointing back to the men or the imaginary babies.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:38 am

Fridmarr wrote:By saying he shouldn't have a vote based on his gender, you are.

The impetus behind this legislation is some controversial research indicating that the baby can feel pain around 20 weeks. I don't think there's any reason to believe having a uterus makes someone more qualified in determining biologic attributes of a fetus. The logic around the whole uterus thing is a red herring and always has been.

You keep saying the "people affected" but keep ignoring the babies.


Under the current law, Klaud is correct in not giving the "babies" as you call them a vote. They aren't a person. They aren't granted rights.

I happen to agree with klaud. I don't have a problem with abortion prior to the fetus being a viable "person" outside of the womb.

That's probably, because unlike a lot of people here, I've been involved in the decision to go forward with an abortion. Is it fun? No. Is it a choice I ever want to be a part of again? FUCK NO. Did we decide that? Yes. Is it something we live with? Yes. Do I want some person who

1.) Isn't the doctor of the woman
2.) Not involved in the pregnancy
3.) pushing a moral agenda over the rights of the woman involved

making the decision? No.

Plain and simple, It's her body. And until the fetus is sustainable outside of the womb, I don't think that it's a person. It doesn't make the decision any less "hard" to make for those involved, but it ultimately comes down to the very idea that it is not a decision that should be relegated to governments, or people not involved.

Set a line in the sand where the Fetus is medically sustainable outside of the womb, and leave it at that. Stop trying to relegate some power or control over a woman because she carries babies in her belly.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:07 am

Like I said, my biggest beef is that the ones pushing all the legislation trying to limit abortion seem to be men, not women.

There doesn't seem to be even a commission where the lawmakers are discussing the legislation with doctors, scientists and women.

Look at North Dakota: http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/25/p ... rmalities/

Also, a good article on the Texas SB5: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/ ... gislation/

When Perry placed SB 5 on the special session agenda, his office released this statement:

“The horrors of the national late-term abortion industry are continuing to come to light, one atrocity at a time. Sadly, some of those same atrocities happen in our own state. In Texas, we value all life, and we’ve worked to cultivate a culture that supports the birth of every child,” Gov. Perry said. “We have an obligation to protect unborn children, and to hold those who peddle these abortions to standards that would minimize the death, disease and pain they cause.”

When Perry says he wants to “cultivate a culture that supports the birth of every child,” what he means is that he wants to force every pregnant person in Texas to carry their pregnancy to term, as demanded by a state government that thinks it knows Texans better than they know themselves—and that thinks it’s better qualified to practice medicine than members of the Texas Medical Association or the American College of Gynecologists.

If Perry cared about the health and well-being of pregnant women and infants and children in Texas, he could have:

* taken the federal Medicaid expansion, which would have helped alleviate the strain of providing quality health care to low-income Texans in a state with the highest percentage of uninsured people in the entire country.
* championed a bill sponsored by state Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) that would restore public funding to Planned Parenthood, which may be the most cost-effective, efficient provider of women’s health services in the state.
* championed any one of state Rep. Mary Gonzalez’s (D-El Paso) bills, which would increase access to contraception among teenage moms, particularly low-income teenage moms.
* championed a bill from state Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) that would protect the rights of breastfeeding mothers in Texas.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby aureon » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:56 am

The best thing about the Texas bill is that the problem is absolutely not the 20-week limit, but the exceptionally strict measures imposed on all abortion clinics, which will probably make all but 4 or 5 abortion clinics in Texas close.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:16 am

aureon wrote:The best thing about the Texas bill is that the problem is absolutely not the 20-week limit, but the exceptionally strict measures imposed on all abortion clinics, which will probably make all but 4 or 5 abortion clinics in Texas close.


Yup. It was a double whammy.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:31 am

KysenMurrin wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:However, seeing the Wendy Davis filibuster, I guess its pretty safe to assume its something women do not want.

Actually plenty do. I'm sure most women don't know who Wendy Davis is.


Fridmarr wrote:Now that we are moving on to representation, I have no clue how you could have surmised my position, since it's never come up before, but honestly I really don't know. I can't say I've got my finger on the pulse of these various slices of women in Texas and how they might feel about the issue.


Make your mind up. Do you know where women stand on the issue or not?

I mean, you keep saying that women are in favour of the bill, but you haven't tried to point to any examples, just kept pointing back to the men or the imaginary babies.

Those statements are not at all inconsistent with each other, and my very next sentence explained all of it. I'm not sure if you stopped reading or if I wasn't clear, but I'll spell it out more explicitly.

We have 300 million people in our country, the percentage of which that identify themselves as pro-choice is less than half. Polling data shows that as the gestation gets later, the percentage of people opposed to abortion grows. I'm certain, that includes "plenty" of women. That said, those polls are national and not broken down by gender, so I don't know where exactly the women of Texas shake out. I can make an educated guess, which I did in that next sentence.

Shoju wrote:Under the current law, Klaud is correct in not giving the "babies" as you call them a vote. They aren't a person. They aren't granted rights.
But under the current system we all get a vote, so that's kind of moot. If we are changing to a system where only those affected get a vote, then I think the fetus needs to be represented, otherwise if as we have now, recent research that indicates that there may be a reason to change that timeline, there's no advocate to bring it forward.

For the record, viability is more of a technological thing than a biological thing. It's certainly independent of when the fetus is a person.

Klaudandus wrote: Like I said, my biggest beef is that the ones pushing all the legislation trying to limit abortion seem to be men, not women.
Well the face of the legislation is men (duly elected by their constituency to represent them), but then that is going to be true of almost any legislation. My beef is that that shouldn't matter. Argue the legislation, but not the sexist notion that the people who authored it are of a gender that shouldn't have a say in the matter.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:45 am

Fridmarr wrote:Argue the legislation, but not the sexist notion that the people who authored it are of a gender that shouldn't have a say in the matter.


A legitimate argument will make sense regardless of the color, creed, gender, or nationality of the person making the argument. Invalidating an argument solely based on its author is the worst kind of identity politics.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:04 am

There were commissions on steroids in mlb, but i dont see any commissions on reproductive health.

The reason why i deride the as old white rich dudes is because i dont see them put any effort in getting educated, on hearing all sides of the argument -- instead they seem to drape themselves on this righteous agenda that they know better than anyone else.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest