And who started it. But that is ok. It is just a debate about history...not a life or death issue.
Will Ole Miss drop the Confederate flag
- Thread starter demziah_01
- Start date
And who started it. But that is ok. It is just a debate about history...not a life or death issue.
Glad to hear it. I din't doubt that was the way you felt and I like a lot of the points you are making about it being an American issue etc.
And who started it. But that is ok. It is just a debate about history...not a life or death issue.
Ha. I was just thinking how funny it is to still be arguing over the Civil War 150 years later. I guess that sums up the whole debate though.
I apologize...but when you say to me "I've defended you"...but then to go and say that what I'm saying is BS...how am I supposed to respond?
And...I've had relatives fight in every war this nation has fought...including the Revolutionary War...and the American flag means everything to me...but it most certainly has the stain of slavery attached to it as well. This country is not perfect...but I still believe it's the best country that has ever existed.
Can we e-hug and make up?
Beats the hell out of debating Bruce Jenner.
It's fine, but Canda is going to be pissed you think their flag has a stain on it and those bastards are not as forgiving as I am.I apologize...but when you say to me "I've defended you"...but then to go and say that what I'm saying is BS...how am I supposed to respond?
And...I've had relatives fight in every war this nation has fought...including the Revolutionary War...and the American flag means everything to me...but it most certainly has the stain of slavery attached to it as well. This country is not perfect...but I still believe it's the best country that has ever existed.
Can we e-hug and make up?
You mean like Chicago, that has some of the most harsh gun laws in the nation and also a completely out of control gun homicide rate? Those type of places?
I agree with you. I've always felt because of the south's history we have been unfairly judged by the rest of the country. There have been some horrific atrocities committed against blacks by the south from slavery to Jim Crow. But on the other hand I've always felt that in most instances white southerners and black southerners have treated each other with kindness and respect because we actually have more in common with each other than we do with our northern counterparts.
Yes those places, because criminals really give a rat's ass if they are breaking 4 laws instead of 3.
Unarmed victims make easy prey.
Lincoln did not issue the first emancipation proclamation to free slaves. He did it to gain soldiers. Otherwise the emancipation wouldn't have only applied to Southern slaves. Lincoln campaigned on the proposition that he had no desire to end slavery. He made the first move out of pure necessity in order to win the war and save the union. The war was not in hand until supply routes were shut off and those freed slaves were extra bodies fighting for the union.
Lincoln seized the momentum created for freeing slaves to ratify the 14th amendment under tremendous pressure. Yes, Lincoln is and was one of our greatest presidents but not for what 3rd graders are taught in elementary school. It's because he was a ruthless tactician that saved the union at all cost including circumventing the constitution to interpret his own view (rightfully in my opinion) of the duties of the office of the president.
In fact the first record of freeing slaves was a battle field decision that yielded such a tremendous result in the following western front battles that it changed Lincoln's views on the matter completely.
The issue of slavery that led to the Civil War was not if slavery should be abolished but rather wich new states should be allowed to have slavery as existing southern states didn't really want the competition yet wanted like minded voting states. The bigger issue of the time was federal power beginning to outweigh states power and the seat of states power beginning to trend to the industrialized north. Lincoln winning the Presidency alone resulted in multiple Southern states succeeding before he even took office.
Lincoln seized the momentum created for freeing slaves to ratify the 14th amendment under tremendous pressure. Yes, Lincoln is and was one of our greatest presidents but not for what 3rd graders are taught in elementary school. It's because he was a ruthless tactician that saved the union at all cost including circumventing the constitution to interpret his own view (rightfully in my opinion) of the duties of the office of the president.
In fact the first record of freeing slaves was a battle field decision that yielded such a tremendous result in the following western front battles that it changed Lincoln's views on the matter completely.
The issue of slavery that led to the Civil War was not if slavery should be abolished but rather wich new states should be allowed to have slavery as existing southern states didn't really want the competition yet wanted like minded voting states. The bigger issue of the time was federal power beginning to outweigh states power and the seat of states power beginning to trend to the industrialized north. Lincoln winning the Presidency alone resulted in multiple Southern states succeeding before he even took office.
Last edited:
This is satire, by the way, but I think this old Randy Newman song expresses what a lot of you are trying to say.
My favorite line is "college men from LSU, went in dumb, come out dumb, too..."
Listen to the whole thing. It is great.
"Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show. . .He may be a fool, but he's our fool."
Rednecks:
My favorite line is "college men from LSU, went in dumb, come out dumb, too..."
Listen to the whole thing. It is great.
"Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show. . .He may be a fool, but he's our fool."
Rednecks:
No I mean COUNTRIES that have made an effort to eliminate gun violence.
I've already addressed this in a previous post.
Serious question for the gun people on here. Why don't you want stricter gun laws? Most of you claim that you want guns for safety and protection reasons. Wouldn't stricter gun laws help with that? Does being able to buy an assault rifle at Walmart or buy a gun without a background check make anyone safer?
I have no numbers to back up anything I'm about to say...just speculating...but I wonder how many of those handguns used in the U.S. murders were used by the actual owner of those handguns...
I have to imagine that a great percentage of those killed were through gang-related fights or robberies...and the guns are probably stolen.
Again...I'm speculating and I may be totally wrong.
But the question I have is this: is the cat already out of the bag in the U.S? If we start super high regulations and background checks...will that keep guns out of the hands of these people committing murders? Or will they find a way to keep stealing guns?
Good conversation. The first recruiting class at the University of Arkansas that had black football black football players was in 1973, up till then there were only two blacks on the team. Jon Richardson was in the 69 or 68 recruiting class and Marsh White was in the 71 recruiting class. The 71 recruiting class had over 50 players and Marsh White was our only black African American. Jon Richardson & Marsh White were the only two Africsn Americsns living in the football dorm, the Wilson Sharp House. The 1973 recruiting class had about 40% black American athletes on the team. Dennis Winston, Harvey Hsmpton, Johnny Meaders, Ivan Jordan, Ike Forte, Jerry Eckhardt, to name a few. There were no black coaches back then either. But credit Frank Broyles for helping us break the color barrier in sports at Arkansas. 1966, Jerry Levias, out of SMU was the first black scholarship player in the SWC. Jerry Levias is credited for breaking the race barrier in the SWC. Hayden Fry was the coach at SMU and he took a lot of flack. That was the situation back when I was in college.
Things have changed in some ways, but as stated, this is s heart issue for every man & woman regardless of the color of your skin. I lived to some degree "Remember the Titans" when I moved to Pine Bluff in the summer of 1970. Three high schools were integrated together, two black schools and the white school, Pine Bluff. We had 3 races on the team, the whites, the blacks, and me - "Big Okie". I had black players on the team to visit our home. It was the church parsonage and my Dad took "Heat" for it. I would invite the players to come to the church's youth events after the game (they called it 5th Quarter party) and you could slice the atmosphere with a knife. My dad was told, "your kid can invite them to a Friday night youth function, but they are not welcome on Sunday". The senior pastor, Dr Tal Bonhsm, had death threats for baptizing black teenagers. We had a patrol car either parked outside our house or regularly patrolling by because of the death threats. We moved from Pine a luff three days after I graduated, lived there from When " two a days started" in August and moved last of May. Pine bluff was my first exposure of the Deep South. We had racism and segregation in Oklahoma, but it was not anything I had witnessed or experienced until we moved to Pine Bluff. Then, the Wilson Sharp house changed from predominately white to 1/3 black. The music blaring from the dorm rooms went from country and western to Earth , Wind & Fire and soul music. I thank God because I love soul music and the Motown Sound. From my perspective, the players, both in High School & college, never had a problem, it was the outsiders that stirred the controversy. Frank Broyles started recruiting the black athlete and sold it to those in opposition by saying " if we want to beat Texas, A&M and USC, we have to have the athleticism of the black athlete. I was immune to whether Coach Broyles took any heat for making this move. The other move Coach Broyles made was to stop recruiting lineman who were not at least 6 ft 2 inches, that was considered the "pro size" lineman back in those days, So Ronald & Donald Fultcher, Billy Burns, Terry Irwen, Jim Long, and myself would not have made the cut in the 73 or 74 recruiting class. Again, this new size rule packaged with recruiting black football players, with the sales pitch of being able to beat Texas, A&M, USC, etc.
Things have changed in some ways, but as stated, this is s heart issue for every man & woman regardless of the color of your skin. I lived to some degree "Remember the Titans" when I moved to Pine Bluff in the summer of 1970. Three high schools were integrated together, two black schools and the white school, Pine Bluff. We had 3 races on the team, the whites, the blacks, and me - "Big Okie". I had black players on the team to visit our home. It was the church parsonage and my Dad took "Heat" for it. I would invite the players to come to the church's youth events after the game (they called it 5th Quarter party) and you could slice the atmosphere with a knife. My dad was told, "your kid can invite them to a Friday night youth function, but they are not welcome on Sunday". The senior pastor, Dr Tal Bonhsm, had death threats for baptizing black teenagers. We had a patrol car either parked outside our house or regularly patrolling by because of the death threats. We moved from Pine a luff three days after I graduated, lived there from When " two a days started" in August and moved last of May. Pine bluff was my first exposure of the Deep South. We had racism and segregation in Oklahoma, but it was not anything I had witnessed or experienced until we moved to Pine Bluff. Then, the Wilson Sharp house changed from predominately white to 1/3 black. The music blaring from the dorm rooms went from country and western to Earth , Wind & Fire and soul music. I thank God because I love soul music and the Motown Sound. From my perspective, the players, both in High School & college, never had a problem, it was the outsiders that stirred the controversy. Frank Broyles started recruiting the black athlete and sold it to those in opposition by saying " if we want to beat Texas, A&M and USC, we have to have the athleticism of the black athlete. I was immune to whether Coach Broyles took any heat for making this move. The other move Coach Broyles made was to stop recruiting lineman who were not at least 6 ft 2 inches, that was considered the "pro size" lineman back in those days, So Ronald & Donald Fultcher, Billy Burns, Terry Irwen, Jim Long, and myself would not have made the cut in the 73 or 74 recruiting class. Again, this new size rule packaged with recruiting black football players, with the sales pitch of being able to beat Texas, A&M, USC, etc.
Last edited:
The self-appointed moral compass of the board chimes in..... How old are you again???
Titan - I have a similar view as you. This country will never be gun-free. The gun control debate is such and interesting and important one. For full disclosure, I grew up in rural Arkansas and guns were a part of life, for hunting and just for sport (target shooting). My dad taught me the safe way to handle them, use them, store them, etc, as well as the responsibility that came with owning them. If everyone grew up like I did, there wouldn't be an issue. But of course that isn't the case. So the million dollar question is: how do we protect ourselves from bad guys with guns?
I don't believe the "everyone get a gun and protect yourself" argument. Very few people would be capable of getting the drop on a "bad guy" or winning a gun fight. It's just not in most people's nature. If you are in a public place and someone opens up on the crowd with an automatic weapon, most people are going to panic, run, take cover, etc, not think "Hey, I'm going to drop this guy". Even soldiers who have been through training struggle the first time they are in a live gunfight. So the idea that a school teacher would be able to handle it the first time is just something I don't buy. Pumping more guns into the system just makes it that much easier for them to be stolen and used by bad guys.
The other argument is "gun control". Personally I'm not opposed to reasonable regulation on the right to own a gun, because I'm sure I'd pass whatever reasonable criteria we'd come up with. But I just can't for the life of me figure out what new controls are going to move the needle. I'm no expert on the laws, but I think we already have laws that prohibit fully-automatic weapons. We have laws that require background checks, and make it illegal for someone with a history of violence and/or mental illness to own guns. Other than closing some loopholes here and there (i.e. allowing gun shows to skip the background checks), I'm not sure what else can be done.
Sorry I don't offer up any solutions. I recognize gun violence is a big problem, I just don't see how either of the current prevailing arguments (i.e. "More guns" and "More laws") are going to solve it.
I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans ..... My paternal G-G-Grandfather lies buried in Ms killed June 10th 1864. ANYONE who calls him a traitor or terrorist is insulting, rude, and ignorant. As to the flag it belongs to ME and my SCV Compatriots alone! The blood of my GGGF paid for it.
ANY use of it by anyone who is not SCV or UDC be they private citizen or government is theft.
ANY use of it by anyone who is not SCV or UDC be they private citizen or government is theft.
Back to the original intent of this thread, the discussion on the flag, here is something I found to be an interesting read on the subject.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-i-was-wrong-about-the-confederate-flag.html
I have never listened to this guy, now or in his heydey as the Southern Avenger, but his take on the flag and what's wrong with politics in America is pretty similar to mine.
"I thought a big part of being conservative meant picking a “side” and attacking the other. I thought not caring what others thought or felt was part of it. Some of my Confederate flag debates certainly reflected that mentality.
This is something ideologues do and is by no means exclusive to the right, as evidenced by the way some liberals cartoonishly portray conservatives, Christians, and, yes, Southerners.
Ideologues ridicule and dehumanize people at the expense of their personhood. Ideologues believe some groups must be attacked, and although the groups are comprised of flesh-and-blood human beings, it’s better not to think of them as people too much—it could get you off message.
It’s crude collectivist thinking. It’s an intentional lack of sympathy. It’s dehumanization. It’s at the heart of everything that’s wrong with our politics and culture.
...
My attraction to libertarianism a number of years ago began a journey of rejecting groupthink and placing primacy on the individual. Once you start down the path of putting individual human beings above whatever group they belong to, it puts politics—and everything else—in a new light."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-i-was-wrong-about-the-confederate-flag.html
I have never listened to this guy, now or in his heydey as the Southern Avenger, but his take on the flag and what's wrong with politics in America is pretty similar to mine.
"I thought a big part of being conservative meant picking a “side” and attacking the other. I thought not caring what others thought or felt was part of it. Some of my Confederate flag debates certainly reflected that mentality.
This is something ideologues do and is by no means exclusive to the right, as evidenced by the way some liberals cartoonishly portray conservatives, Christians, and, yes, Southerners.
Ideologues ridicule and dehumanize people at the expense of their personhood. Ideologues believe some groups must be attacked, and although the groups are comprised of flesh-and-blood human beings, it’s better not to think of them as people too much—it could get you off message.
It’s crude collectivist thinking. It’s an intentional lack of sympathy. It’s dehumanization. It’s at the heart of everything that’s wrong with our politics and culture.
...
My attraction to libertarianism a number of years ago began a journey of rejecting groupthink and placing primacy on the individual. Once you start down the path of putting individual human beings above whatever group they belong to, it puts politics—and everything else—in a new light."
First, I don't oppose some stricter gun laws. The training for a concealed carry permit is insufficient in my opinion - there were people in the class I took that IMO shouldn't be carrying without going through significantly more training. Please note that I'm talking about carrying in public here, not owning a weapon for home protection. The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Carrying that weapon outside your own property (I would include your vehicle as property in this case) should be considered a privilege that must be earned by demonstrating some level of competency.
Background checks are a good idea. I would add some kind of reporting requirement for mental health professionals for this, as mental illness has a hell of a lot more to do with the problem than the availability of guns. You get into some tricky areas with HIPPA laws, but the safety of the majority should win out over the privacy rights of those who might cause harm to others.
Finally I would add civil liability for anyone who does not do their due diligence in selling a firearm, particularly in private sales. Background checks are easy to perform online now, and cost anywhere from $10 to $35 depending on how in-depth you go. If you sell your gun to some random guy you don't know who later shoots up a church or theater AND you didn't perform a background check, you should be held liable for your negligence.
Now, I'd like you to answer a question. How do you define "assault rifles" as you mentioned them in this post? Because most people have no clue what they are talking about when they throw out that term.
Do you agree or disagree with my statement and why? Seems pretty much every post in this thread is an editorial on personal moral beliefs outside of the history debate yet you choose to focus on me. I think you are infatuated with me and I find that both sad and hilarious.
On the guns issue...correct me if I'm wrong...but the shooter in Charleston was given the gun by his dad (so he didn't buy it himself...thus a background check wouldn't have caught anything)...and the kid who killed the school children in CT used his mom's guns (so, again, a background check wouldn't have caught anything). And...I'm still thinking that most of these inner-city shootings (which I'm assuming is what keeps our gun-murder rate so high) are with stolen or "bought from a friend" guns.
For those of you who want to lessen the amount of guns in the U.S....you have to ask yourself is there really a way to lessen the number of guns in the hands of criminals? Or does gun control only effect law-abiding citizens? Is gun-control just another "feel-good" solution for an element of society?
For those of you who want to lessen the amount of guns in the U.S....you have to ask yourself is there really a way to lessen the number of guns in the hands of criminals? Or does gun control only effect law-abiding citizens? Is gun-control just another "feel-good" solution for an element of society?
That's exactly how I see it. If gun sales stopped tomorrow you would have a black market similar to the drug trade. Criminals who didn't have guns would steal (or attempt to steal) them from law abiding citizens. If someone is willing to commit murder all a gun law would do would add one more charge to the docket at trial.
Something else people don't understand...because it's in the Bill of Rights, "guns for all" is the default position from which we must begin the discussion. It is up to those who want more regulations to prove a need for the laws they propose, and not on those who oppose the law to prove that there is no such need. There have been plenty of reasonable laws that have been added that have made society safer. Background checks are a great idea, especially now that they can be obtained practically instantly. The ban on automatic weapons is good, because we don't want half-assed shooters playing Rambo and taking out innocents, intentionally or otherwise. I have yet to see a legitimate argument for restrictions or outright bans on semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47. These guns are no more dangerous than your average deer rifle, but because they look similar to fully automatic military guns people automatically assume they are something that regular citizens don't need.
I am a strong supporter of gun owner rights. Having said that I see no problem with background checks. I have filled one out with every gun I have purchased. Why would we not conduct background checks on the second hand sale or 3rd party transfer of a firearm? Straw purchases are illegal. Any sale without a background check should be as well. It's as simple as that.
Even if it is a family heirloom weapon if the person receiving it is a convicted felon of a violent crime.... sorry buddy you gave up the right to own a gun when you did what you did. Pass it on to the next of kin.
Adversely if a criminal commits a crime with or is found with a weapon not legally registered to them then their sentence should automatically be doubled. If you want to take illegal weapons off the street then punish the crime of using the illegal weapon on top of the crime committed with the illegal weapon.
I agree that the conceal carry classes are well below standard for a proper certification but I also don't think they need to be some sort of special forces level class either. Self defense with use of deadly force is typically needed for those who are preyed upon for the simple fact that they physically aren't capable to defend themselves against most predators. However if you have never held a gun in your life you shouldn't be cleared to carry one in public 24 hrs after you purchased it. Certified expert should be the title earned through conceal carry class and it should mean just that.
The issue of mental health is way more difficult than people want to admit. Mental health issues can be cured through many avenues. As well many diagnosis are subjective upon the doctor they are under care from. That answer is going to be much deeper to reach. On the whole it seems easy to say no guns but as in the case of PTSD recreational target shooting has helped many returning warriors cope with their ailments.
Even if it is a family heirloom weapon if the person receiving it is a convicted felon of a violent crime.... sorry buddy you gave up the right to own a gun when you did what you did. Pass it on to the next of kin.
Adversely if a criminal commits a crime with or is found with a weapon not legally registered to them then their sentence should automatically be doubled. If you want to take illegal weapons off the street then punish the crime of using the illegal weapon on top of the crime committed with the illegal weapon.
I agree that the conceal carry classes are well below standard for a proper certification but I also don't think they need to be some sort of special forces level class either. Self defense with use of deadly force is typically needed for those who are preyed upon for the simple fact that they physically aren't capable to defend themselves against most predators. However if you have never held a gun in your life you shouldn't be cleared to carry one in public 24 hrs after you purchased it. Certified expert should be the title earned through conceal carry class and it should mean just that.
The issue of mental health is way more difficult than people want to admit. Mental health issues can be cured through many avenues. As well many diagnosis are subjective upon the doctor they are under care from. That answer is going to be much deeper to reach. On the whole it seems easy to say no guns but as in the case of PTSD recreational target shooting has helped many returning warriors cope with their ailments.
I agree with all of your points. Those seem like pretty obvious steps to put in place. In fact, 90% of this country thinks that similar gun laws should be enacted yet nothing happens. The NRA and their lobby have way too much power.
As far as the assault weapons go, I'd guess that your question probably centers around the AR-15 which I do believe to be an assault rifle. I realize that it is semiautomatic but I don't think that you should be able to stroll into Walmart and buy an AR-15. I don't think there is any good reason for anyone to own an AR-15.
What is it about the AR-15 that makes it more dangerous than say a Ruger 10/22? The bullet isn't that much bigger, and the capacity is similar. I enjoy target shooting with mine - it has much less recoil than my deer rifle, for instance. That's my reason for owning one. It adds to my pursuit of happiness, and doesn't make you or anyone else less safe.
So where do you draw the line on which guns make people less safe? There is no question that we are far less safe than the rest of the civilized world when it comes to gun violence.
Like I said above. Fully automatic weapons should be illegal, and they are. There is no legitimate reason to single out semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 as more dangerous than others. Why would you want to draw some arbitrary line anyway? If you want to make certain weapons illegal, it should be due to the function of the gun in question and not the appearance.
Guns make people less safe when they are in the wrong hands, and more safe when they are in the right ones.
In 2012, for every criminal killed with a gun in self defense, 34 innocent people died from guns. There are TWICE as many accidental gun deaths every year than there are "justifiable" gun homicides.
The facts are the facts.
I think it is clear that we are not capable of keeping the guns out of the wrong hands. That is undeniable. Gun violence is a massive problem in this country and if making some progress means upsetting some people that think it is fun to go shoot shit in the backyard or at the shooting range then so be it. You know what else is upsetting? A bunch of people getting shot all the time. If stricter gun laws keep guns out of the hands of 500 "bad" people is that not worth a small amount of inconvenience to you? The rest of the world is shocked and appalled at the level of gun violence in this country and our apparent lack of interest in doing anything about it.
Things we know about guns:
Places with more guns have more homicides.
Suicide is more common in places with more guns.
Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death.
Guns contribute to domestic violence.
A very tiny percentage of gun violence is committed by mentally ill.
In mass shooting over the past 35 years, the guns were obtained LEGALLY almost 90% of the time.
States with stricter gun control have fewer gun deaths.
So a thread about the Confederate flag and Ole Miss turned into a personal rant about gun control. Par for this board
Part of the reason politics and religion shouldn't be discussed on a sports message board. It always devolves into more and more rhetoric with no one solving anything in the end.
You moved the goalpost here. We agree on some level of safeguards. None of what you posted addresses what I said about drug violence. Take out the drug related killings of one criminal by another and our numbers compare favorably with others.
Once again, how are semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 more dangerous than other guns? Without looking it up I would guarantee you that few if any of the accidental gun deaths came from an AR-15 or similar semi-auto rifle. If there were any, I would bet that they were accidents that could have happened with any other kind of firearm. Banning these types of rifles wouldn't change the stats you posted in either direction.
It looks to me like you want to do away with all guns. If there were a 100% certain way to make sure we got them all I might agree. In fact I'll turn mine in right after everyone else does. We both know that will never happen. I have yet to see a realistic gun law proposed by control advocates that would do anything to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. I'm definitely open to the discussion if someone can come up with one though.
I don't think anyone is coming to a message board with the expectation of solving the gun violence in this country. However, I would say that this dicussion/debate has been one of the most civil I've been a part of on this board. Considering the topics discussed in this thread, I have to say I'm impressed.
So, who are these people that are committing all of these gun crimes? Is it the people who love to shoot shit as you claim? Let's break down the geographical gun homicide rates, the gender gun homicide rates, and the racial gun homicide rates. You want to use mass shootings as your point of rage when they are but a tiny percentage of gun homicide. View the gun crime rates per capita of Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, and LA then view the gun crime rates per capita of Mountain Home, Flippin, Stuttgart, Prescott, and Hamburg.
Then also compare median house hold income of those locations as well as gun ownership % per households.
What you will find is lower income rates in the Arkansas towns, much higher gun ownership rates and VASTLY lower (almost non existent) gun crime rates.... but how can this be? You say more guns = more murders and crime?
No, more guns don't = more gun crime. More guns in the hands of criminals leads to more gun crimes.
One would imagine there are more guns per hone in the Arkansas towns I listed than almost any other part of the country. But shock of all shocks.... some of the lowest gun crime rates in the country as well.
Last edited:
I don't even know if I'm supposed to take this post seriously. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with people that refuse to use logic so I'm not going to discuss this topic with you anymore.
Similar threads
