quote: All pharmacists are Tongorons who refuse to sell prophylactics.
In the whole world, or in someone's particular area?
I am trying to address this hypothetical seriously, but this is hard for me to get past in my thinking.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with a pharmacist who refuses to issue birth control pills. As long as that SAME PHARMACY has another pharmacist on staff who will to do so right then and there.
My wife was on birth control for 5 years before having sex. It was prescribed to regulate her monthly cycle, which was having bad problems.
[ May 29, 2007, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Do we criminalize Tongoron pharmacists?
No.
I can't imagine anyone has seriously suggested we should do this (or the real world corollary). On the other hand, people have suggested other responses which are not beyond the pale.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks as if the government doesn't want anyone to use prophylactics but wants some other group to take the fall. "See, we're not restricting your right to prophylactics, it's those narrow-minded pharmacists and since we have a free society you are free to have prophylactics and they are free to not sell them. It would be unfair of us to require them to sell them so it is out of our hands."
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is requiring a religious pharmacist to fill birth control prescriptions a violation of the constitution? Its one thing for a small busines/independent pharmacy to refuse to sell them. That is within their right. It is another for someone to take a job with CVS and then refuse to sell them, knowing it is part of their job. I don't even mind that, if another pharmacist is on staff, but CVS should be within their right to fire the religious one for refusing.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only said "government" as Scott did not detail the power establishment. Someone or some group gave the right to have prophylactics but restricted its sale to a group that they should know would refuse to sell. I'm not sure I would call it a conspiracy but it is a way to set policy without coming out and actually banning prophylactics. I would just call it spineless.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could stop selling them through pharmacies. You could have pharmacists other than Tongorons.
I think it depends on how much of the job involves selling prophylactics. If half of the pharmacy's sales are prophylactics, it's pretty unreasonable to expect a pharmacy to hire people who won't sell them.
If the Tongorons have a monopoly, the government should probably step in to break it up. That's not criminalizing Tongoron pharmacists; it's simply ensuring fair trade. If the public wants pharmacies that sell prophylactics, then the Tongoron ones will go out of business.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a remarkably incorrect summation of the situation. There is too much to point out everything so let's go with "a group that they should know would refuse to sell." Pharmacists are not a monolithic group.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
All pharmacists are Tongorons who refuse to sell prophylactics.
[/QB]
Under Scott's definition they are a monolithic group. Perhaps Scott can be more clear as to what his hypothetical situation is actually referring to.
He didn't say that pharmacies are required to sell prophylactics. So if the "powers that be" want prophylactics available there are a number of ways they can go about it. In answer to his question as to whether the Tongorons should be criminal the answer is yes only if a pharmacy is required to sell them.
edit to add that I was only assuming they had the right to not sell them, it was unclear and I was just applying my view of our rights. It may not be applicable in this situation.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, under Scott's scenario: still no. If you can criminalize the Tongorans, then you can make prophylatics available from other than pharmacists or you can break the monopoly on pharmacists held by Tongorans.
Both of those would preferable to, you know, randomly locking people for following their religious beliefs. Unless you want to start criminalizing vegetarian restaurants and the managers of Target when they run out of black tights.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you can criminalize the Tongorans, then you can make prophylatics available from other than pharmacists or you can break the monopoly on pharmacists held by Tongorans.
That is my point. What is the policy goal? If you actually want prophylactics to be available then either don't make them only available through a group that won't sell them or make it easy for others to break into that group's monopoly.
I definitly don't think one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs (well, most of them) but I also do not believe everyone should be held hostage to them.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking about the issue that spawned the thread I had to wonder if pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control also refuse to carry condoms in their stores...
In Scott's scenario, at least one of the current conditions must change (they cannot all exist simultaneously) - either prophylactics are no longer a right, they can be obtained somewhere other than a pharmacy, there are non-Tongoron pharmacists, or the Tongorons are prosecuted for interfering with the legal rights of others.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Unless you want to start criminalizing vegetarian restaurants and the managers of Target when they run out of black tights.
Sometimes don't you wish you could; say if you sit in the drive up line at Mcdonalds for 10 minutes to order a McFlurry and they tell you they don't have it and you have to sit another 10 minutes to be able to get out of the line. Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly! I swear, the local Target is NEVER stocked up with things people actually buy. I don't know why they don't order more black tights - they are ALWAYS out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must admit the Pixiest's response (not her specific response--the "response" as it arises from the population) puzzles me.
Being a pharmacist who doesn't want to sell prophylactics is not like being a soldier who doesn't want to go to war. Prophylactics are not the sole purpose of a drug store's existence. I can easily imagine a pharmacist who wants to "help people" and whose religious beliefs cause them to see certain pharmaceutical products as "harming people". Except in small towns where there is only one pharmacy, I have trouble seeing it as a problem to accomodate someone like that.
Loose analogy--what would you think of a pharmacist who refused to sell a legal-suicide drug for religious reasons?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some states have proposed things like this -- making it a crime for pharmacists not to sell birth control, or requiring Catholic charities to pay for insurance coverage to provide abortion. The answer for the pharmacist is simple: we ought obey God rather than man. The answer for society is simple too: simply allow non-Tongorons to be pharmacists too.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we could all agree that there is no religious freedom to practice human sacrifice with unwilling subjects. So clearly, religious freedom does not extend to active commission of harmful acts. I think we would also agree that there is no religious exemption from, let's say, saving someone from drowning, if you could do so without risking physical harm to yourself. There are probably few jurisdictions with actual laws against failing to help someone in mortal danger, but the moral question is clear: You gotta help. (As an incidental aside, this tells us a lot about what religious people think is really important: Beliefs are set aside if a real physical human is in trouble.) So, there are times when you cannot use religion as an excuse to not commit a helpful act.
Finally, let's note that there is no religious freedom to go about being 'religiously helpful'. That is, even if you believe that full-immersion baptism is necessary (with or without consent) to salvation, you don't have the right to push people into the river, even though your religion says you are being helpful. That is, the standard of helpfulness that we apply is that of the one being done unto. So, even though the Tongoron can claim that "In my religion, I am doing harm to the buyer by selling drug X", that is not the correct standard to apply.
The complicating factor is that we are not talking about emergency aid, but about a commercial transaction. I do not want to force the owner of the pharmacy to sell what he doesn't want to sell. I do think the owner of the pharmacy should be able to kick out Tongorons who refuse to sell what he wants sold; clearly they are not doing their jobs. There is no religious exemption from satisfactory job performance.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Some states have proposed things like this -- making it a crime for pharmacists not to sell birth control ...
Which states? *interested
I know the reverse is true: there are 4 states with "conscience clauses" that protect pharmacists who don't want to dispense some items, and there are (at my last count) 11 states that are considering passing such regulation.
I don't know of any states considering criminalization of refusal to dispense. I'd love to see a source for that.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is another for someone to take a job with CVS and then refuse to sell them, knowing it is part of their job. I don't even mind that, if another pharmacist is on staff, but CVS should be within their right to fire the religious one for refusing.
I agree completely. I worked at Barnes & Noble for a bit, and in the interview they asked if I had any problems selling books I might find objectionable- such as books related to Satanic worship. My ability to sell all of their products was a condition of being hired. I don't see why pharmacists should be any different.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a possible issue with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (deals with anti-employment discrimination). That portion of federal legislation applies to businesses with 15 or more employees and requires the employer to attempt a reasonable accommodation to issues arising from religious beliefs. So, for example, if it is not too burdensome, Title VII may require pharmacies of a sufficient size to have a back-up pharmacist on call.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, you might appreciate Ellen Goodman's 2005 article, Dispensing Morality. I found it a very thoughtful piece.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, thanks for that link. It expresses much of what I believe. I particularly like this line:
"Have we forgotten that what holds us together is the other lowly virtue, minding your own business?"
Pharmacists' jobs are to dispense medication as indicated by a physician. They have a right, maybe an obligation to express their concerns to the physician but in the end it is the physician and the patient that make the decision not them.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: If a profession makes part of a job illegal, don't be that profession.
What if it wasn't illegal when you spent a huge amount of time training for the profession and it was suddenly made illegal?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Solution to your problem, I would immediately take Pharmacy tests, and then sell the prophylactics at quite a mark-up. Other, non-Tongonian's would join me. Soon the market would solve the problem.
How about the poor Bermedial doctors who believe that only those of Bermedian beliefs are true people. They refuse to serve any medication to anyone who doesn't take the Bermedian oath. They are the only doctors in three states (North Bermia, South Bermia, and Lower Bermia.) While most of the people in the state are not complaining, a large Non-Bermian American contingent in the big cities of Lower Bermia are suffering.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is another for someone to take a job with CVS and then refuse to sell them, knowing it is part of their job. I don't even mind that, if another pharmacist is on staff, but CVS should be within their right to fire the religious one for refusing.
I agree completely. I worked at Barnes & Noble for a bit, and in the interview they asked if I had any problems selling books I might find objectionable- such as books related to Satanic worship. My ability to sell all of their products was a condition of being hired. I don't see why pharmacists should be any different.
Exactly. And from that point of view, there's really no reason for religion to come into it at all. "Does this individual have a moral issue with dispensing any of our products"...REGARDLESS of where that moral issue comes from, be it religion, upbringing, or telepathic messages from aliens...is a perfectly valid question for an employer.
posted
Oh, and I thing we all agree that the Pharmacist who converted to Idiocracy was wrong. His newfound religion proclaimed homosexuality as an abomination before the lord, and that it shall be punished on earth as in heaven. So this pharmacist has been replacing several peoples Anti-Aids drugs with placebos. He claims he isn't killing people, for if God choose to let them live, they would live.
His manager and supplier are strict non-believers. They helped with his switching of the drugs for pure profit. Placebos--cheap. Medicine--expensive. Besides, they weren't really killing people, they were just allowing the zealot to kill them.
So who is the worse crimminal, and why?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Ah, but what if B&N itself decided not to sell Satanic books any longer? Would they be violating the right of Satanists to purchase their religious texts? Hardly. So if a pharmacist who owns her own drugstore refuses to sell birth control, that's her affair, not anyone else's. If there is no other pharmacist in town, go to the next town. There's no bookstore here in Donna, Texas, nor in the next town over (Alamo), nor in the next (San Juan), nor in the next (Pharr), but in McAllen, 35 minutes away, I can find two of them. Are my rights being violated because I have to drive that far to purchase a book? Uh, duh, no.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_raven, your analogy is pretty over-the-top and not all that relevant to people's not selling something. There's obviously a huge ethical chasm between not selling birth control and making people believe they're buying medicine for their condition when they're actually purchasing a placebo.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Amanecer,
Ah, but what if B&N itself decided not to sell Satanic books any longer? Would they be violating the right of Satanists to purchase their religious texts? Hardly. So if a pharmacist who owns her own drugstore refuses to sell birth control, that's her affair, not anyone else's. If there is no other pharmacist in town, go to the next town. There's no bookstore here in Donna, Texas, nor in the next town over (Alamo), nor in the next (San Juan), nor in the next (Pharr), but in McAllen, 35 minutes away, I can find two of them. Are my rights being violated because I have to drive that far to purchase a book? Uh, duh, no.
I personally agree with that. There is enough of a demand for birth control that the big chains like Rite Aid will always sell it. If the smaller independent ones don't want to sell it at all, they don't have to.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: There is a possible issue with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (deals with anti-employment discrimination). That portion of federal legislation applies to businesses with 15 or more employees and requires the employer to attempt a reasonable accommodation to issues arising from religious beliefs. So, for example, if it is not too burdensome, Title VII may require pharmacies of a sufficient size to have a back-up pharmacist on call.
Is that really discrimination though? If I ran a Rite-Aid and chose not to hire someone because they refused to sell a certain product, why would that be discrimination? I'm not choosing not to hire him/her because of their religion, but because they are incapable of doing the job I need done.
If I have two candidates, one can do 100% of the job, and the other can do 98% of the job, I'll pick the 100% one, and not care much about the reason why. To me, it's kind of silly to expect someone will hire you when you aren't willing or able to do the whole job. Now some places that would work just fine, like if I worked at Cedar Point and hated heights so much that I refused to operate the Top Thrill Dragster, they could put me on the Raptor, it's no big deal. But of my job involved running ALL the rides silmultaneously, and I still refused to operate the Top Thrill Dragster, then why would they hire me?
Frankly I don't think religion matters in this specific instance. No one is telling them who they can and can't worship, no one is telling them what they can and can't believe. It's a cruel world, but sometimes following your faith closes doors while it opens windows, you can't always have it all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not choosing not to hire him/her because of their religion, but because they are incapable of doing the job I need done.
I think this is where the point of discussion arises. (Mind you, I'm not defending it, just trying to parse out why the situation has not yet been settled by the courts.) "Reasonable accomodation" without "undue burden" is the sort of language that is used in working through this, and it makes some sense to me.
I see law as generally working at hitting some middle ground, but with the knowledge that the perfect state of interpretive affairs will never occur. People are always going to push past the actual intent of the law and bend it to suit their own purposes. This is true of people in general, not just people of a given sort. That's how the legal system works.
I think the trick is deciding in which way the balance is least upset overall. (This is a sticky and unsatisfying metaphor, but it's the best I can do for now.) That is, if you know that, in this case, the law is either going to be too restrictive of employers business decisions or of employees' freedoms of religion -- even if not actually the case in your example, Lyrhawn, but in the broader sense -- which way do you tilt it toward? In general, I think tilting it toward protecting those with less power probably balances out better in the end, as other power dynamics are working in the opposite example.
So, in the case of your example, perhaps we have to tolerate this particular instance (even if it isn't a clear abridgement of religious freedoms) in order to protect employees from other, more clear abridgements. We can limit and mitigate that overbalance to one side by adding in language about reasonable accomodations and avoiding undue burdens, giving some leeway to individual judges to assess the merits of particular cases.
But that protection, no matter how narrowly worded, is indeed going to be stretched to cover nonintended circumstances. It would in the reverse situation, too. If I thought we could nail it down precisely, I'd be all for that, but I'm actually quite convinced that we are balancing on a very shaky and tilting board that is not ever going to be firmly nailed down.
Sucks, that, especially for a lover of logic and precision. *shakes fist
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The wonderful thing about the internet is that you don't need to drive to another town to buy those Satanist books. You can get them from Amazon.com, or from an online store specializing in them. Likewise, if your local pharmacy won't stock birth control pills, you can order them through the mail. A drug you need right away, such as the morning after pill, is a trickier situation. I wonder if it would be possible to let physicians have a few on hand to give to a person right there in the office. Actually, it's OTC now, isn't it? So why not stock a few, since timing is critical?
On the other hand, if a pharmacist harasses a person who is trying to get the pills or takes away the prescription, I see no reason to protect them. That sort of behavior can and should get a person fired.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if it would be possible to let physicians have a few on hand to give to a person right there in the office.
Considering you can get it directly through Planned Parenthood (and your regular BC, too) and most ERs have it available to give patients who are rape victims directly now, I don't see why at least one clinic in each city or town could not have some as "first responders" for this kind of crisis.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if a pharmacist who owns her own drugstore refuses to sell birth control, that's her affair, not anyone else's. If there is no other pharmacist in town, go to the next town.
This is where it gets ticklish. I see this argument employed by so-so economists and very, very many MBAs. You are presuming that the consumer has a reasonable choice, or that transportation is reasonably available, which may or may not be true. Probably, but maybe not. Let's say that a Tongoron buys Rite-aid HQ, and there is one drug store, Rite-Aid, in every little town for miles. With gas prices being what they are, condoms have just become prohibitively expensive, or for people with a car and the money to drive to the next county for rubbers. Or maybe the local towns have offered a Tax Incentive to Rite-Aid to ensure that each town has a drug store.
There are certain standards and practices the public expects of industries, CT knows more than I do, but I think that's the entire point of the AMA. I imagine the state Bar is similarly contrived.
I'm not saying that the government, or a para-governmental professional organization, should legislate, forcing the sale of prophylactics, but I do believe it's a live issue, to be debated most vigorously at the scale of local government.
I also believe that there may not be a harmonious clear, and convincing decision, but hey, I think think quite a few of our principles are at odds with each other, and the real unreasonable expectation is expecting them all to agree.
posted
Irami, I think you have a point to a certain extent: that in certain portions of the country and in certain other countries this could be a relatively hot-button issue because of the lack of available competition/transportation. I would venture that for most of the US at least both the Tongoran monopoly on pharmacists and the Tongoran refusal to sell prophalactics would be swiftly defeated by capitalism.
In areas where this is more of an issue I would lean towards pushing legislation that allowed for said products to be distributed elsewhere (outside the sphere of influence of Tongorans) rather than just in pharmacies.
What worries me about the Title VII issue is that "not too burdensome" is a dangerous requirement to set on the law (though I'm sure the actual statute is worded at least slightly differently). The trouble is situations like this:
CVS employs 40 workers (thus over the 15 employee limit) however, they only employ 3 pharmacists. So even hiring one tongoran pharmacist would be a fairly significant burden on the other two.
Hell, we even run into similar trouble in my company, and we employ tens of thousands of workers. however there are many groups such as mine where there are only ~6 people here capable of doing the work we do... so being forced to hire someone not fully willing/capable to do the job is a big deal for us. Now we often still do it because the company doesn't want lawsuits on it's hands, but it is still detrimental to the business.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by: Claudia Therese So, in the case of your example, perhaps we have to tolerate this particular instance (even if it isn't a clear abridgement of religious freedoms) in order to protect employees from other, more clear abridgements. We can limit and mitigate that overbalance to one side by adding in language about reasonable accomodations and avoiding undue burdens, giving some leeway to individual judges to assess the merits of particular cases.
See that's where I agree with you, in principle. I agree with slamming the door shut on minor infractions in order to make sure the door is firmly sealed for when the big infractions come along, but to me, this specific instance seems like too much of a non-religion issue. If my religion demanded that I abstain from Alegebra but I still wanted to be a Math teacher, I go through all the training, I become a math teacher, and then when I interview I say I won't teach Algebra because I don't agree with it, but I'll still teach basic arithmatic and geometry, provided ANOTHER math teacher who is already on the staff teaches all the Algebra, who would hire me? Would you reasonably expect someone to hire me?
For me, personally, the argument boils down not to religion, religion is a non-issue here, it's all about job qualifications. If I listed everything I was and wasn't willing to do for a job and didn't list the reason why, is it discrimmination for me to not be hired based on my list of skills alone? I think this is one of those cases where being religious involves some sacrifice. I side with business on this one.
Besides, who decides what is too burdensome? And who has to shoulder the burden? I would consider an exception, if there were three pharmacists in a pharmacy, one refused to do a certain thing so the other two had to pick up the slack, the one who refuses to do it should get paid less, and the ones who don't refuse should get paid more. That way the burden falls on the individual getting the benefit of the doubt and not on the company who is just trying to do honest business.
This is one of those instances where I don't agree with "have your cake and eat it too" mentality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From someone who has dealt with this....asking if they would be able/willing to sell birth control (or whatever) is not illegal, nor is considering their answer in deciding if you should or should not hire them.
If their views change, and you consider it to interfere with the job they were hired to do, firing them isn't illegal either.
quote:You are presuming that the consumer has a reasonable choice, or that transportation is reasonably available, which may or may not be true.
Actually, I'm not. I don't really even care, to be honest. I'm just trying to show why it's a moot argument. As is all the gas price stuff you mention. You don't even need a car, as someone mentioned above. You can get your prophylactics easily, even if you don't own a computer...
Step one: go to the corner store, buy a chargeable Visa card, putting enough money on it for your condom purchases for the month.
Step two: go to the public library, get on the Internet, and use the card to order your condoms. Have them delivered to your home.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If birth control is in short supply in an area because phramacy owners refuse to sell it, wouldn't the least intrusive solution be for the government to set up some means of providing birth control?
How exactly would you force pharmacies to sell birth control? Would you say they have to sell it or lose their pharmacy license? What if they sell sugar pills in packaging that labels them as birth control pills? What if they sell it for $100 a pill (after all, the prices on the boxes are only "suggested")? What if they sell only some method that they know none of their customers likes to use? It seems that you would need so many regulations to determine what counts as "selling birth control" that it would be cleaner just to have the government sell it if necessary.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: ... Step two: go to the public library, get on the Internet, and use the card to order your condoms. Have them delivered to your home.
What happens if the warehouse worker or mailman (if the package is not discreetly labelled) finds out what the package is and decides that they have a religious objection to either packaging it or delivering it?
Admittedly it is an unlikely scenario, but it does highlight the question: Why should we let pharmacists to be derelict in their duties due to religious objections but not other professions?
How chaotic would society be if people just randomly developed religions and refused to do their duties based on arbitrary objections from their religion?
How do you distinguish between a pharmacist that refuses to sell prophylactics because they're pro-life and a restaurant worker that refuses to serve meat because they believe that animals are equal to human? A bank teller that refuses to serve women that are not wearing burkas?
I'd have to basically agree with Lyr here, if you must, refuse to do whatever your religion dictates but take the consequences that come with being derelict in your duties.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'd have to basically agree with Lyr here, if you must, refuse to do whatever your religion dictates but take the consequences that come with being derelict in your duties.
Agreed. I will never work in certain industries (fast food comes to mind) because while it is possible to deal with them, there would be issues all the time.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
depends on who determines what is "reasonable accommodations", doesn't it.
Which is why I dislike this state of things, and feel employers should be able to decide if they are willing to allow their employees to refuse to do parts of their jobs based on their own personal beliefs.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
