|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Who actually USED the available data? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1590421884 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/20 at 08:51:24 |
|
Title: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/20 at 08:51:24 Why does it look like it was ignored? Were they wearing masks? NOPE, Social distancing? On a cruise ship,, with dining rooms,, and dance floors, and bars,, And of the dead,, did they get the Zpack and zinc and everything availabe NOW? Nope,, So,, WHY is everything Not just Open, and everyone back at living life? The real world example is the cruise ship with about 3,800 passengers trapped in a relatively small space with no real treatment at the time. Out of those 3,800 people, 702 came down with the virus and out of those 702 people, 7 died. Since the HCQ, zinc, z-pac protocol was not known at the time, you could say this group of people trapped on the cruise ship were a control group of test subjects. And the test showed that there was an approximately 20% infection rate and of the 702 people who got ill with the virus, a 1% fatality rate. That is no where near the Spanish Flu levels. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/25/20 at 09:12:05 I used it and presented in full every number I used to get there, with references. You won't read it. Again: It's not a direct mortality rate that was the concern. It was the influx of patients entering limited capacity care centers in numbers that exceed their ability to provide treatment along with a circular recurrence as asymptomatic people spread it unknowingly to at-risk individuals. Overwhelming the system is the problem. If your garbage news sources are saying millions will die, or that SARS-COV-2 is the worse pandemic in modern times, or that asymptomatic people are immune, or that Kohls was forced to close etc. then that is unfortunate for you. Also I'd be interested in how you are managing to make a cruise ship a direct analogue for the entirety of the US as a whole. It's like asking what the difference is between a Wal-Mart and a meat packing plant. The differences far outweigh similarities, but it's much simpler to just say a disease should effect every building, airspace, person in the exact same way. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/20 at 09:26:07 Aaaand,, hospitals werent over run,, Not only not overrun,, but that ship sent to NY was only used for about 20 beds,, Nothing like what was predicted happened. The available reports that mere mortals like myself had available were all bullshit. If you had accesss to better info,, good for you, bt America Got FUKKT,, and lied to |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/25/20 at 10:17:07 I'd be interested in how you are managing to make a cruise ship a direct analogue for the entirety of the US as a whole. As I have said before. Absolutely anyone can take today's information and tell someone else what they should have done. Did it kill anyone putting Mercy on a US dock to help US citizens if they needed it? Nope. Now that doesn't mean other restrictions were the best choice, but specifically and only the topic with the exclusion of all other topics, what damage did putting a US Navy medical ship on a US dock do? |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by MnSpring on 05/25/20 at 11:00:56 7B5B59514C5B3E0 wrote:
That IS what, the "Officials", (CDC and like), the Government/s, the controlled, "Media", (which includes the UL FDS Progressive Socialist Media) SAID ! Interesting, now you are saying, 'Officials', 'Government/s', 'Major Media' are; "...garbage news sources ..." |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/25/20 at 11:23:59 That IS what, the "Officials", (CDC and like), the Government/s, the controlled, "Media", (which includes the UL FDS Progressive Socialist Media) SAID ! Can you point me to one report from the CDC that predicted millions of deaths? I am aware of some used, and released by the White house that the CDC pointed out was not to be used as they were demonstrative. "Major Media" is garbage resource, I've been saying that on here since I've been posting. They very obviously alter coverage to appeal to their consumers for ad revenue incentive. "Officials" that can/will not provide their sources are garbage resources. "Governments" is a huge pool of collective resource, any that can/will not provide their sources are garbage resources. Websites that cut apart quoted from different occasions, cite losing court cases as precedent, leave out sections of reports, etc. etc. are also garbage news. Facebook checklists are garbage resources. YouTube physicians that "decline respectfully" to provide the source material they got their numbers from are garbage resources. There's a lot of garbage. I prefer garbage that at least provides me enough information to replicate that garbage myself and not ones that just say stuff I like to hear. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/20 at 13:00:26 2505070F1205600 wrote:
I didnt say it Did damage I said it was hardly used Which is an indictment of the Big Scary Numbers that someone was was producing, OR,, That ship wouldnt have been sent there.. Models WROng,, And how do you NOT use the cruise ship as at least useful data? It obviously isnt 100% accurate, BUT Its Actual DATA,, nit death from alcohol poisoning Called CV.. There was a Carrier,, and sailors,, and That data was used How? And I think a second cruise ship, I never saw anyone actually discuss how those numbers were being used in projecting,, WHO made the models? Ive seen a guys name come up, several times,, Cat temember it, But,, a few details stuck,, He had been involved in other little pandemic moments,, ALL OF HIS MODELS were not wrong, but Embarrassingly WRONG,, and, because he has a degree,, he keeps a job, and is an EXPERT,, and Mere mortals MUST do as Exoerts SAY, or get arrested,, FUUK NO.. They can sukkadikk,, |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/20 at 13:01:23 I'd be interested in how you are managing to make a cruise ship a direct analogue for the entirety of the US as a whole. Dont put words in my mouth |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by srinath on 05/25/20 at 20:19:14 I love the over reaction, the first day I need to go back in the office I'll make sure I cough and sneeze a lot. I really like working from home etc etc. I have freaking lost 50% of my paltry 401K, the least the Chinese owe me is to WFH for ever and the other related perks. Yea virus is a joke - even among old people who typically go on cruise ships its a low low low fatality rate. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/25/20 at 20:24:32 "And how do you NOT use the cruise ship as at least useful data? It obviously isnt 100% accurate, BUT Its Actual DATA,, nit death from alcohol poisoning Called CV.." I did, as did the CDC. I presented the information on here in full. Every number, every justification. Cruise ship is there. But you aren't going to read it, and also keep claiming it wasn't used. You asked about the AZ models, I presented information about their accuracy and now that's forgotten. CO modeling is very close to real numbers, and CO is actively remunerating the UCOD numbers to account for the CDC coding for those models. We need to elucidate the information metrics for different models then average them. When a prediction of census is an increase of 39% and we get 34% that's pretty darn close. Millions of deaths in the US, where? Where did the CDC claim this? |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/20 at 06:34:11 CO modeling is very close to real numbers, and CO is actively remunerating the UCOD numbers to account for the CDC coding for those models. engrish pleeze |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 06:38:08 Some CO models try to account for underlying cause of death (UCOD) so everyone that dies in the next week aren't in the SARS-COV-2 primary mortality rate. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by MnSpring on 05/26/20 at 08:04:57 1E3E3C34293E5B0 wrote:
OK, 'Some', and, 'the next week'. So now, CO models are now totally up to Par ???? |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/20 at 10:46:53 I totally dont get it |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 11:51:21 OK, 'Some' Yes. There is more than one model type and many parameters. and, 'the next week'. Yes. As in the 7 days following each model prediction. A prediction is made for percentages 7 days out, and that would make it the next week. "Some" models do this but not all. For instance a monthly model would not use a 7 day review. "So now, CO models are now totally up to Par ????" I can send you all the available numbers and you can look them over and tell me when they were not. When they are asked to go to DC to demonstrate how they are building the metrics I can only hope it is not as an example of what not to do. Bottom line is we make a prediction percentage and then check that prediction with actual numbers within medical centers. Those numbers historically are very close, within single digits. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 12:01:40 "I totally dont get it " Various models use different methods to assess and make predictions. The ones I am utilizing make predictions in regards to how many patients will end up in specific locations, such as medical centers, in the state. This includes a projected, yet less accurate mortality rate. Those models use CDC guidance, one of those being the provisional coding you and I have been discussing for weeks. These, no matter how much people want to say it, do not include car wrecks, alcohol poisoning etc. as SARS-COV-2 primary causes of death. They would list the primary cause of death as blunt force trauma, or alcohol poisoning, but if the patient has SARS-COV-2 they would end up in the CDC provisional coding on the last line of documentation for Underlying Cause of Death, or UCOD on a death certificate. The UCOD coding for SARS-COV-2 that the CDC provides is not being used in our metrics to predict how many patients will end up in various medical centers since it would make them inaccurate. This means that while the CDC may want to provisionally code 9 out of 10 deaths as SARS-COV-2 related, we are not doing this so our numbers read closer to 1 out of 10. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Serowbot on 05/26/20 at 12:06:10 5777757D6077120 wrote:
Bottom line is,.. these people are doing their best to make accurate estimates ,.. because this is a real issue and truth matters,... science matters... |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/20 at 12:29:51 And yet, states have been forced to admit to counting bogus deaths as cv deaths and dropping the totals by twenty percent and more. So, statements to the Science and only science totals are Bullshit |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by srinath on 05/26/20 at 12:34:43 1006110C14010C17630 wrote:
Bottom line is,.. these people are doing their best to make accurate estimates ,.. because this is a real issue and truth matters,... science matters...[/quote] Well - it may, but I'm almost prepared to hear the what if because thetruth is indeterminate and the science can be in conclusive. Assume its this - what's your proposed solution. The same as these fools who wanted to conduct $3600 in tests to find if my son was allergic to milk or wheat. We took him off wheat. Made no difference. Took him off dairy, voila huge improvement. I don't care what the science is. What is your proposed solution. If that solution is self serving and helps shovel more $$$ into your pocket, I'd call the science garbage. Its like if I was a judge in a beauty contest and I slept with one of the contestants, I would say - to be fair, I need to sleep with all of the contestants so I can be unbiased. Yea that works great (for me) Same chit with global warming, shutdown etc etc. I know the science is for global warming, but the solution seems built to funnel $$$$ to china, public transit, Tesla and other chit I have no interest in helping and not toward the work from home chit that helps a lot more and helps me too. Virus will kill 500 million people, after Biden said guns have killed 150 million and Biden plans to put 700 million women to work. OK so what's the solution - work from home - hey, that also solved global warming - I'm all in. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/20 at 14:25:26 Gosh! Why would Anyone Ever Doubt what they are being told?? A male corpse was found in a Colorado park with a 0.55% alcohol level. That’s well above the lethal limit. The coroner declared cause of death as alcohol poisoning. But just as in those sardonic memes, the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment (DPHE) insisted on categorizing it as a COVID-19 death. x Previously, attending physicians at a nursing home had ruled three deaths as not related to the virus. But, again, the state insisted on classifying them as such anyway. Reasoning? All four of the deceased had tested positive for the virus. The park death, however, was the last straw for GOP Representative Mark Baisly, who blew his top, and for the doctor who issued the death certificate for the poisoning case and went public. “I can see no reason for this,” declared Coroner George Deavers, while Baisly threatened to demand criminal charges against Jill Ryan, the executive director of DPHE. So now Colorado has switched to a dual recording system. It still keeps a broader category of “deaths among cases,” and the smaller category of “deaths due to.” But you have to go directly to its web site to see that. The number still reported to the CDC and thence to data aggregation sites like Worldometers or the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center to count Colorado deaths and U.S. deaths remains “deaths among.” The dual system essentially amounts to an asterisk. Nevertheless, the difference is marked. The “due to” category is about a fourth smaller than the “caused by” one. And there’s no reason to think it’s different in other states. So when the nation hits the 100,000 Covid-19 death mark soon, if you subtract 25%, it would still be proportionately far less than half the 1968-1969 “Hong Kong Flu” (H3N2) which killed an estimated 100,000 Americans at the time — or 170,000 when adjusted for U.S. population increase. And no, the economy wasn’t destroyed and constitutionally protected civil liberties suspended for the Hong Kong Flu. No other states have yet to follow Colorado’s lead. Pennsylvania temporarily dropped hundreds of deaths from the rolls after coroners complained it was fudging the data, then announced it would count “probable deaths” with confirmed and added them back. Full disclosure but… The overcounting, in Colorado and elsewhere, is far more important than it might seem. The presumption is that the “due to” category means a positive COVID-19 test. It does not. The DPHE web site states that the more restrictive category “represents the total number of people whose death was attributed to COVID-19 as indicated on a death certificate. This number is determined by the CDC.” And the CDC explicitly does not require a positive COVID-19 test. On March 4, the federal agency issued an advisory that in absence of testing, COVID-19 could be put on a death certificate “where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.” So if the patient had other “comorbid” or pre-existing conditions that may actually have killed him or her, coronavirus can still be labeled the primary cause of death. Three weeks later it stated comorbid conditions could be listed on the certificate as contributory, but the primary cause of death would still be COVID-19, and that’s what would go into the databases. So in the extreme, the patient could have been suffering from heart disease, diabetes, morbid obesity, asthma, and lung cancer, and even without a COVID-19 test the primary cause could be listed as COVID-19. The change is so important that literally overnight New York City reported an extra 3,700 “COVID-19” cases that shocked the entire nation. It was all a definitional artifact; none had been tested for the virus. The San Diego Department of Health recently, reluctantly under questioning, was forced to admit that out of 211 “Coronavirus deaths” a mere six (2.8%) didn’t have pre-existing conditions. Massachusetts on its health department web site notes only 1.7% didn’t have pre-existing conditions. The CDC uses a higher (but still low) figure of 7%. Even the architect of the systematic world lockdowns, British professor Neil Ferguson, whose unpublished and unreviewed “computer model” of as many as 2.2 million American deaths without drastic action set off lockdowns around the world, later admitted that as many as two-thirds of those listed as coronavirus deaths might die before the end of the year anyway. So it’s more than just possible that the vast majority of the time COVID-19 either played little role in the death or perhaps slightly hastened death. The U.S. is not alone in its loose definition of coronavirus deaths. If anything, the WHO is even more insistent on pushing the virus as the cause of mortality, saying it shall be used, even without testing, “unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma).” So we can eliminate flying through a windshield, but otherwise we’re going with covid. But nobody is required to use the WHO definition. According to the head of the White House Task Force Deborah Birx, in some other countries “if you had a pre-existing condition and let’s say the virus made you go to ICU and then got a heart or kidney problem … they would register that as a heart problem or a kidney problem and not dead from COVID-19.” But in the U.S., “Right now … if someone dies with COVID-19, we count it as a COVID-19 death.” Ultimately the CDC can recommend, but it cannot force. So why would health departments and those responsible for signing death certificates favor listing COVID-19 as the cause of death over equally plausible or perhaps more plausible alternatives? One explanation is “availability bias.” COVID-19 is absolutely everywhere in the news. Last year a cough or a sneeze was considered a cold or allergy; now we jump because … medical professionals, like others, are apt to find what they were primed by preset attention to expect. Another reflects what Elizabeth Pisani, a former epidemiologist for the WHO and other agencies, has called “beat-ups,” as in “beating up the numbers.” In her book, The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS, she says of drastically inflated predictions, “We did it consciously. I think all of us at that time thought that the beat-ups were more than justified, they were necessary” to get donors and governments to care. Finally, follow the money. There has been a lot of confusion about hospitals and caregivers being paid more for declaring a death coronavirus instead of flu or anything else, and some information is false. The reality is that under the “CARES Act” signed in March, the Medicare program that covers Americans over age 65 does pay a 20% premium if a case is declared COVID-19. The precise dollar amount depends on various factors, but obviously collecting an extra one-fifth for filling out a form with one disease instead of another must be tempting. Now add that a full 80% of U.S. COVID-19 deaths are among those age 65 and over and clearly this may have a huge impact on deaths reported. Ultimately, it will take some extremely detailed studies to have a good idea of how many true deaths the nation has suffered “due to” COVID-19. But there is already strong reason to suspect the figure is highly inflated, partly due to intent, and therefore the official CDC death toll may not be particularly useful for government policies. When CORONERS start complaining about the lies,, should I Ignore THAT!? |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by srinath on 05/26/20 at 16:02:12 This Chinese virus was created by the communists, who quickly disavowed it and nearly successfully refuted its existence, and its been killing people slightly more effectively than the regular flu and its heavily adopted by the wanna be commies to assign blame to their opponents. Is it even possible ??? Truth is stranger than fiction. Lets write that in plain simple terms. Created by commies. Disavowed by commies. Picked up by wanna be commies to assign blame to their mortal enemies without acknowledging it was their ilk that made it. Beyond stupid. Love the lockdown. Hopefully it will quash the workplace re alignment or whatever the crap is called for good. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 17:04:17 "When CORONERS start complaining about the lies,, should I Ignore THAT!?" You are historically pretty selective on what information you will accept. For instance 7 coroners think those photos of Epstein are the same ear, none think its a body double. So I'd say in this case you will listen to the coroners since they are saying something you want to hear, but in the Epstein ear situation you won't because they disagree with you. Obviously the quotes above by by Michael Fumento that you didn't reference are ones you agree with. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/20 at 17:07:43 So, blood tests DETERMINED scientifically what killed the guy Someone decided it was CV anyway Yeah, it's not an Opinion.. So I'm going with it. I figured my eyes were as good as anyone else's on the ear.. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 17:17:09 "So, blood tests DETERMINED scientifically what killed the guy." Blood tests determined that the DNA belonged to Epstein. But since it was a body double blood tests shouldn't be considered a credible source of gaining results from a dead body. "I figured my eyes were as good as anyone else's on the ear." Unless they disagree with your assessment, then those eyes are deficient and incapable of assessing human ears on dead people. Which is fine, except now that same profession is completely competent. If they cant tell that those photos are undeniable two different ears why should we listen to them on anything else? Discrediting a profession when its handy then handing that credibility back doesn't make sense to me. Obviously the quotes above by by Michael Fumento that you didn't reference are ones you agree with and he retains credibility. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/20 at 17:40:15 Youre playin games,, I thot that was beneath you |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 18:05:31 I'm just providing a reason for my answer to your question. It seems people are only credible if they are saying things you agree with. Which is all good until you ask us... and you did ask, if you should ignore Coroners. Yeah you should if you think they can't tell human ears apart. If they can't assess a dead body and bloodwork correctly how can they assess paperwork correctly? |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/20 at 18:19:33 You're just pissed because I said a long time ago the numbers being reported were Bullshit Evidence continues to show I've been right all along.. Now you're playing a sandbox game, trying to tell me why I can't believe the article, because I called BULLSHIT on a picture,, I'm disappointed in you.. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by MnSpring on 05/26/20 at 19:24:41 1A3A38302D3A5F0 wrote:
Who is, "...us..." ? |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 20:17:25 You're just pissed because I said a long time ago the numbers being reported were Bullshit Evidence continues to show I've been right all along.. I am not emotionally invested in your predictions, there is nothing here worth being pissed off about. Also I agreed with you. I agreed with your assessment that a lot of "reported" numbers will be incorrect. This is why I have encouraged people to use resources that cite enough information that you can do the math yourself. There's a reason CO is dual reporting like I said it would. "Now you're playing a sandbox game, trying to tell me why I can't believe the article, because I called BULLSHIT on a picture" I don't care if you believe the article. I am saying that your logic doesn't make sense to me. An article is only correct if you already believe what it says. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by Eegore on 05/26/20 at 20:19:20 "Who is, "...us..." ?" Any human with forum permissions that reads the post and has authorization to respond. "Us" consists of the authorized members of this forum since this is a digital public forum utilized by authorized members. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by WebsterMark on 05/27/20 at 04:57:17 2533243921343922560 wrote:
Bottom line is,.. these people are doing their best to make accurate estimates ,.. because this is a real issue and truth matters,... science matters...[/quote] A true but complicated statement is “Science is not math”. Science is interpretations and predictions from gathered data, of which are four are influenced by personalities. If everyone on this forum were virologist working on Covid, we’d all come up with different “science.” Remember, New York said you could hang out on the beach but you couldn’t swim in the ocean. California said you could swim in the ocean but you couldn’t hang out on the beach. They both claimed they base their decisions on science. There have been so many errors over the past few months, it’s impossible to count. One difference now is we are compressing a process that normally takes years, decades to complete, into a short timeframe and under a glaring microscope and there’s no doubt that microscope has been influenced by the personality of Trump and the hatred returned his way. No escaping that fact. Anyone my age who grew up in the US has vague memories of smallpox, whooping cough, measles. I knew a man who died from AIDS 25 years ago. Today we have TV commercials advertising drugs that lessen the symptoms but there’s no cure for HIV. It took almost 50 years to develop a vaccine for polio. We’ve been after Covid-19 for 3 or 4 months now. |
|
Title: Re: Who actually USED the available data? Post by MnSpring on 05/28/20 at 07:32:50 485E49544C59544F3B0 wrote:
A-Yep, Truth Matters. Like in Winnebago, Mn, where the Owner of a Building, (Did you hear that, the OWNER), was charged with violating emergency powers, because he, and 3 others were in this building, playing cards. This building was LOCKED, it was NOT, OPEN, to the public. It was a Bar, and it was shut down, according the current orders of the Gov. 5 days prior. “...and truth matters…”, Why has their been no more information on that, ‘volition’ ? Was it Dropped ? Did those 4 people playing cards in that Private building with the OWNER of that locked private building get sick ? How sick ? Were they tested ? Did any of they die from C-19 ? “...and truth matters…”, A woman was charged in Mille Lacs County with drunken driving. (Totally correct !) The question WHY was she was also charged with violating Walz’s ‘order’, when he, specifically outlined, “Allows Driving For Pleasure”. Was the 2nd charge dropped ? “...and truth matters…”, A Woman was stopped for driving while her license was canceled, (said court documents). Why was she also charged with violating Walz’s ‘order’. Was that second charge dropped ? Was she stopped, just because the Officer saw her driving, then discovered the, ‘no DL', voloiation ? “...and truth matters…”, A West St. Paul man was charged with violating an emergency order, criminal damage to property and marijuana possession after he allegedly shot paintballs from a vehicle at houses in Inver Grove Heights last week. Got it, totally understand it, the unanswered questions are; What happened to the, 'violating an emergency order', charge ? Was the, violating an emergency order, charge first, then the other things discovered ? WHY did the Police cited his female passenger with violating an emergency order ? “...and truth matters…”, How many people have C-19 Antibodies ? How many people have been sick, (describing the c-19 symptoms), and no problems/hospital ? How many have recovered with no problems ? How many have never had it, yet been in a position/place/circumstances/etc, ? How many deaths are actually FROM C-19, not a death from some other cause, which a person has a UNKNOWN level of C-19. ? A-Yep, Truth Matters. And their is NO TRUTH. Only manipulation, for the sole purpose of putting Swamp Dwelers back IN THE SWAMP ! |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |