|
pangstrom posted:"You see, fellow coworkers, measles is like a computer virus, but for people..." Firewalls are full of unnatural code, which is why I ref-ref-ref-refuse to ena-na-nable mine.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The kid will still be seen. Just at a higher cost. Insurance companies incentivize behavior all the time. For example I lose my nice low rate if I don't get an annual physical and cholesterol test, the logic being that preventative care and early diagnosis saves my insurance company money in the long run because they can put me on cholesterol meds rather than be on the hook for heart surgery, or not have to worry about me showing up out of the blue with stage 4 cancer. I don't see why a higher rate for anti vaxers is any different. I don't want to go too far into this in particular, but the EEOC has had at least three different lawsuits about this very issue. On the one hand, the PPACA allows for deductions in cost based on these sorts of screenings, but the ADA mandates that all health tests be truly voluntary. Wait, I thought they all had special company shuttles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Aye, one would presume the homeless kids would get the vaccinations they require as soon as is possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I don't want to go too far into this in particular, but the EEOC has had at least three different lawsuits about this very issue. On the one hand, the PPACA allows for deductions in cost based on these sorts of screenings, but the ADA mandates that all health tests be truly voluntary. Well the suits are all pending. Is it penalizing those who don't? Or rewarding those who do? You don't have to get physicals under the plan. You just don't get the same benefits as those who do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Main Painframe has a point. When you have a single issue fringe group, as a politician it's easier just to not piss them off. Regular voters usually have a wide range of issues they care about it. This is a major factor. Sure, the majority will say they're in favor of vaccination if you track them down and ask them, but how many of them are willing to write their politician to lobby for it, form interest groups dedicated to pushing for it, and so on? How it polls doesn't matter as much as how much noise people are going to make on their own, without a pollster having to ask them. Plus there's the fact that the two political positions aren't on equal ground. Anti-vaxxers aren't fighting to ban vaccination, they're just fighting for the middle-ground "just let everyone decide for themselves" that politicians love so much. In the spectrum between "ban" and "not ban", they don't just own their side of the debate - the wishy-washy middle-of-the-ground position is theirs too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well the suits are all pending. Is it penalizing those who don't? Or rewarding those who do? You don't have to get physicals under the plan. You just don't get the same benefits as those who do. With the Honeywell case, if you didn't get screened they would withhold a bunch of money from the HSA. I have heard of smaller companies increasing rates if you don't lose enough weight or meet other health targets, but that's all second hand info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I know for a fact that Boeing basically increases your premiums if you don't get a health screening and also answer a questionnaire every year
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
One of my friend's wife sure is posting a lot of anti-vax quackery, this time from a "naturopathic doctor". Thing is we are having a birthday party soon and want to invite them since they have kids. Is it weird to want to ask them their kids' vaccination status? There will be a lot of babies at this party... I work with this friend and I don't want things to go sideways if he's in the same boat as her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I know for a fact that Boeing basically increases your premiums if you don't get a health screening and also answer a questionnaire every year Yeah, it's kind of a pain in the rear end, though luckily you can get the blood testing kits sent to your house. Faustian Bargain posted:One of my friend's wife sure is posting a lot of anti-vax quackery, this time from a "naturopathic doctor". No, that's not weird in the slightest. Tell her the parents of these babies are concerned and that everyone needs to be updated on the appropriate vaccinations. I know several parents who were making this request about whooping cough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:One of my friend's wife sure is posting a lot of anti-vax quackery, this time from a "naturopathic doctor". Ehh, it can be awkward but it's important. It's right up there with "do you have guns in your house and if so, please show me where and how you store them before I let my child play over there" for me. Although you could try to ease into it - maybe mention to said coworker that your kid is going in for XYZ shot soon, does he remember that one being harder on his kids than the rest (for instance, my kid pretty much skated through all his vaccinations, but DTaP hit him pretty hard and he wasn't a happy camper for a few days) He might just offer up that they aren't vaxxed. If he says anything leading you to believe they've had at least some of the shots, he shouldn't be too weirded out by you asking if they are on schedule before extending an invitation. If they're going to be offended by not getting invited, that's their problem - and maybe it's the first little step toward them realizing that their stupidass decision is going to affect their child negatively. There are repercussions to this decision, and some of those repercussions are that your children might be excluded from things for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
This is an interesting article from Mother Jones last year: How Many People Aren’t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State? It sounds like all you need to do is make it a little bit inconvenient to opt out of vaccines, and that the personal/philosophical exemption is the real culprit. I guess people are more willing to self-identify as personal/philosophical kooks than as religious kooks. "In many states, obtaining a religious exemption isn't any harder than getting a personal-belief exemption. But according to Omer, religious exemptions aren't as popular as personal-belief exemptions. He's found that opt-out rates in states that allow personal-belief exemptions are 2.5 times as high as rates in states that only permit religious exemptions. In one analysis he found that whooping cough rates in states with personal-belief exemptions are more than double those in states that allow only religious exemptions." ... "There's evidence that tightening exemption laws makes a difference. After reaching an exemption rate of 7.6 percent in 2009, Washington state passed a law requiring parents to get a doctor's signature if they wanted to opt out of their children's vaccinations. In just two years, the exemption rate plummeted by more than 40 percent. Pertussis vaccination rates climbed to 92.4 percent in the past school year, representing "the highest pertussis vaccine completion rate for kindergartners since the state began to collect this data in the 2006-2007 school year," according to the Washington Department of Health."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Fionnoula posted:Ehh, it can be awkward but it's important. It's right up there with "do you have guns in your house and if so, please show me where and how you store them before I let my child play over there" for me. Although you could try to ease into it - maybe mention to said coworker that your kid is going in for XYZ shot soon, does he remember that one being harder on his kids than the rest (for instance, my kid pretty much skated through all his vaccinations, but DTaP hit him pretty hard and he wasn't a happy camper for a few days) He might just offer up that they aren't vaxxed. If he says anything leading you to believe they've had at least some of the shots, he shouldn't be too weirded out by you asking if they are on schedule before extending an invitation. Say what? No, gently caress that. If they're your friends, then just ask them directly about it. Don't do this Suburban Housewives "let me ask you a question so that I can get the answer to a completely different question" bullshit, just ask them if their kids are vaccinated for gently caress's sake
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:This is an interesting article from Mother Jones last year: How Many People Aren’t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State? That article needs a proofreader who can do some basic math. An exemption rate of 7.6 percent would have resulted in a 92.4 percent vaccination rate. (100 - 7.6 = 92.4) So they started off with a 7.6 percent exemption rate, and after bragging about a 40 percent reduction of exemptions, they had got it down to a 7.6 percent exemption rate that which is where started from. I'm going to be nice, and assume that the writer probably copy and pasted the wrong number, and/or conflated some numbers like MMR and Pertussis vaccination rates, and editors usually aren't great at math. Or their source was just bullshitting them because the reporter didn't know any better. Not that I disagree with the basic premise of the article, because I think a lot of people would find it awkward to admit socially that they're basically snake handlers in order to try to get religious exemptions for their kids. But if you're going to try to use math to make an argument, you really need to get those numbers right, and not make it look like the writers flunked 4th grade math. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:That article needs a proofreader who can do some basic math. An exemption rate of 7.6 percent would have resulted in a 92.4 percent vaccination rate. (100 - 7.6 = 92.4) So they started off with a 7.6 percent exemption rate, and after bragging about a 40 percent reduction of exemptions, they had got it down to a 7.6 percent exemption rate that which is where started from. I'm going to be nice, and assume that the writer probably copy and pasted the wrong number, and/or conflated some numbers like MMR and Pertussis vaccination rates, and editors usually aren't great at math. Actually, the numbers presented appear to be pretty much correct. They're from here. However, I'd say it's a bit misleading to say that legislation was driving force behind the decreased exemption rate. For Kindergarteners in 2008 - 2009, the exemption rate was 7.6%. In 2011 - 2012, after the tougher exemption laws were passed, the exemption rate was 4.5% - a 40% decrease. However, the exemption rate had been steadily dropping the previous two school years, going from 7.6% to 6.2% to 5.9%. There's probably something more than the legislation at work. In 2012 - 2013, the complete compliance for Pertussis was 92.4% - the fact that this matches the 7.6% exemption rate in 2008 - 2009 is a complete coincidence. Edit: spelling. moebius2778 fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:Actually, the numbers presented appear to be pretty much correct. They're from here. Nice Rebuttal. But still, you have to admit that Mother Jones article tried to lay out it's facts in the worst possible way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Nice Rebuttal. But still, you have to admit that Mother Jones article tried to lay out it's facts in the worst possible way. It's a news article on scientific research, this is hardly surprising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:This is an interesting article from Mother Jones last year: How Many People Aren’t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State? I am 100% of the belief that every child should be forced to be vaccinated. Just make them, gently caress religious exemptions. I'm usually more of a left-leaning moderate but this is one of the times when I believe the government should absolutely shove vaccinations down their throats. I came to this conclusion after engaging one of them in a conversation on Facebook and literally, they were just nuts. The conversation basically went like this (massive paraphrase here): Them: *stupid meme about people in the fifties having measles parties* Me: "Actually, that never happened. Nobody wants their kid to get measles." Them: "Then why don't you tell me how the Amish aren't dying off, huh?" Me: *posts link to NPR segment/article about Amish now getting vaccines* Them: "The NPR is run by Jesuits anyway, hardly the most unbiased source. What about the mercury in vaccines?" Me: "There's more mercury present in tuna. There isn't anywhere near enough in a vaccine to harm you." Another random fundie caps-lock loon: "Well I'LL TRUST IN GOD MORE THAN ANY HUMAN THANK YOU, VACCINES ARE POSION" Me: "Oh really? so God told you vaccines are poison? You sure a person didn't tell you that?" And from there it literally devolved into a mass deluge of religious memes and out-of-context Bible verses so I just stopped replying. These people aren't out to be reasoned with. They cannot be spoken to. They are just plain stupid and (unfortunately) they have kids. I think of them and I feel bad, I really do. Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:And from there it literally devolved into a mass deluge of religious memes and out-of-context Bible verses so I just stopped replying. These people aren't out to be reasoned with. They cannot be spoken to. They are just plain stupid and (unfortunately) they have kids. I think of them and I feel bad, I really do. As elitist as it sounds, I honestly find it fascinating how stupid some people are. Like, it's interesting that these people - who are the same species as me and you! - are so dumb and bad at thinking. I wish I knew what it was like to be inside the head of a person like that. It's my personal belief (or at least, I find it very likely) that the way a child is raised during their first several years has a huge impact on how intelligent they become later in life. It makes more sense than intelligence being mostly determined by genetics (because if it was, that would also imply a bunch of terrible things, like black people being innately less intelligent, etc). I think that the sort of stupidity you see in people like a bunch of the anti-vaxxers mentioned in this thread is the result of things like children not being read to or intellectually challenged early in life. It makes sense, given that we know that a huge portion of brain development occurs during childhood and can be influenced by a child's experiences and education. If a child's curiosity isn't properly stimulated and they aren't encouraged to think critically while they're young and their brain is still developing, it may have a permanent effect on their intelligence later in life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
They just had more mercury in their MMRs than we did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:As elitist as it sounds, I honestly find it fascinating how stupid some people are. Like, it's interesting that these people - who are the same species as me and you! - are so dumb and bad at thinking. I wish I knew what it was like to be inside the head of a person like that. Nutrition also plays a massive role. Check out the UN/WHO stuff on Stunting and Wasting- fun topics. Captain Mog posted:I am 100% of the belief that every child should be forced to be vaccinated. Just make them, gently caress religious exemptions. I'm usually more of a left-leaning moderate but this is one of the times when I believe the government should absolutely shove vaccinations down their throats. I came to this conclusion after engaging one of them in a conversation on Facebook and literally, they were just nuts. The conversation basically went like this (massive paraphrase here): Your sample isn't representative of 100% of the population- there's a tiny subset of folks with hearfelt, not craziness-based religious belief objections that reasonably can be honored without significant population risk. On the whole "force every child to be vaccinated" side of things, bear in mind that some of them can't due to other health conditions. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Isn't intelligence also affected by how much stress you had growing up? I suppose this is mixed in with the stuff about nutrition and how you're raised, but I read that when you grow up with the constant stress of, say, living in poverty, it has a high chance of degrading your intelligence. Therefore, poverty tends to beget poverty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Isn't intelligence also affected by how much stress you had growing up? I suppose this is mixed in with the stuff about nutrition and how you're raised, but I read that when you grow up with the constant stress of, say, living in poverty, it has a high chance of degrading your intelligence. Therefore, poverty tends to beget poverty. The social determinants of health literature is complicated, and the causal stuff Marmot discovered isn't as strong as he presents it to be (the proposed stress mechanism isn't really falsifiable, and the primate model stuff really isn't sufficient). That specific instance aside, no, I'm not familiar with any strong evidence that stress diminishes IQ. (emphasis here is on "strong evidence"- researchers have been throwing "stress causes X" at everything the past few years).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Isn't intelligence also affected by how much stress you had growing up? I suppose this is mixed in with the stuff about nutrition and how you're raised, but I read that when you grow up with the constant stress of, say, living in poverty, it has a high chance of degrading your intelligence. Therefore, poverty tends to beget poverty. I recall reading a study that found a strong correlation with poverty and brain function but no concrete link on what exactly was causing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I recall reading a study that found a strong correlation with poverty and brain function but no concrete link on what exactly was causing it. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/09/pinched-minds/ is one of several articles about poverty and cognitive load.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/09/pinched-minds/ is one of several articles about poverty and cognitive load. I'm rushing out the door- I'll check it later, but I'm highly suspicious. Generally speaking, press release + publication in Science are warning signs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/09/pinched-minds/ is one of several articles about poverty and cognitive load. Note: all linked articles are free and open access. I've read the underlying study this press release is based on. The premise appears sound and the basic design is OK, under the circumstances. Note that this is a cognitive load explanation, though, NOT a long-term one. The idea is the relatively uncontroversial one that someone under the additional stress of being impoverished has more trouble making rational decisions, which isn't really all that interesting, and doesn't indicate the same sort of direct impact on cognitive function that, say, malnutrition has. This doesn't stop the authors from making really overbroad claims about longitudinal IQ impact based on an inappropriate measure. I should also mention that there's a comment on the article that rips it to shreds for generating spurious results using stat tricks(they dichotomized a continuous variable in their analysis, for example), and making claims outside the data. The authors also have a response, which I find really unconvincing. (edit: jesus, they respond to the dichotomizing a continuous criticism by citing to other people who have done it. Guillotine.) Let me be clear- I think income inequality and poverty are for almost all intents and purposes Really Bad Things. But this study looks like Really Bad Science, and it doesn't substantiate a "poverty causes IQ loss" claim. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Say what? No, gently caress that. If they're your friends, then just ask them directly about it. Don't do this Suburban Housewives "let me ask you a question so that I can get the answer to a completely different question" bullshit, just ask them if their kids are vaccinated for gently caress's sake  aren't vaccinated, he understands the concern. We still cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/09/pinched-minds/ is one of several articles about poverty and cognitive load. Discendo Vox posted:Note: all linked articles are free and open access. I'd just like to say, that I'm skimming the study as I am typing this, and I'm getting bad feelings just from the abstract. The argument they are proposing hinges around that everyone has a finite capacity for cognition (sure, we can't disagree here), and then uses a weird analogy to posit that poor people are constantly worrying about being poor and this is what makes them less intelligent, which is more an argument based on intuition then on a theory or a model, which would be preferable in this case. Moving on to their initial study, the experimental hypothesis is poorly stated and uses unspecific and unscientific language. The authors then continue to ramble for another paragraph until they get to the second experiment which involves the farmers, thankfully this section is actually written in a way I can understand so I am assuming this was written by a psychologist. In regards to their first experiment, they split a continuous variable (income in dollars) by dividing the sample into two classes from the median. Because the whole study is bizzaro, the experimenters do not give the full descriptives on the first sample, except to say that the mean income was approx $70,000 and the lowest income was $20,000. The experimenters also fail to account for some confounding variables in the field study, although they do acknowledge this. There's some things about stress in there too as a confounding variable and I don't think they address it properly. Overall, I agree that we should be accomodating to the poor people of our society (this is the point of the study, apparently). However, I think the whole study is poorly written and laid out, in a way this obfuscates any poor experimental design decisions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:They just had more mercury in their MMRs than we did. The MMR never did contain thimerosal. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:agreeable I used this study and the paired responses to demonstrate the potential application of my dissertation research to a faculty member today, which is the best use I think will come of it. There's a lesson here, dear goons- even if the research you're touting promotes views you find highly agreeable or even morally necessary, read the actual research.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I used this study and the paired responses to demonstrate the potential application of my dissertation research to a faculty member today, which is the best use I think will come of it. I didn't really read your previous comment beyond "the premise appears sound and the basic design is OK", so I'm happy we came to similiar conclusions. My biggest criticism is the godawful format, it really could've been formatted in APA but then I suppose the target demographic for this research isn't psychologists, or anyone actually. Recoome fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:I didn't really read your previous comment beyond "the premise appears sound and the basic design is OK", so I'm happy we came to similiar conclusions. My biggest criticism is the godawful format, it really could've been formatted in APA but then I suppose the target demographic for this research isn't psychologists, or anyone actually. For bonus points, read the associated "perspective" piece. It's crazy to think that, within our lifetimes, Science was considered a "top tier" journal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For bonus points, read the associated "perspective" piece. It's crazy to think that, within our lifetimes, Science was considered a "top tier" journal. I'm kind of confused here, it's not really a perspective as so much as a big hugbox of congruent opinions to the study being referenced. I would've thought a perspective would be that, a perspective, but all the author seems to do is parrot the last section of the study (probably because the author gave up reading the whole loving thing). There's an awful lot of "could", "maybe" and "might". It's probably not amazing ground-breaking research however, and it's certainly not "eye-opening". I'm not actually sure on what it's supposed to be, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For bonus points, read the associated "perspective" piece. It's crazy to think that, within our lifetimes, Science was considered a "top tier" journal. quote:Many find it puzzling that those in poverty seem to get stuck in that state, even when there are opportunities to improve one's lot Haha yes so we provide so many opportunities, truly it is a puzzle why poor people have poor kids who stay poor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
but you see it's because the poor people have trouble thinking, so really we should just make the decisions for them, that will make them less poor!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
I actually think proving to people that there's reasons is pretty important. Humans in general are assholes and need to be able to relate to people in order to feel empathy. Think of the lovely billboards that say "what if it was your sister or wife" in relation to rape. We shouldn't need to specifically point out that "hey - women get raped and it's never their fault" but sadly we do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I actually think proving to people that there's reasons is pretty important. One of the weird things about the human psyche is that people we don't know register as things rather than people. It's easier to justify being terrible to things because things don't have feelings. It's why "you should be afraid of them!" is such a powerful message and why it's so easy to convince large numbers of people that the medical industry is evil and greedy and only wants your money. Meanwhile the person telling you to hate them is being friendly and humanizing themselves. Don't worry, you can trust us! This is why snake oil salesmen are always so friendly. Hey I'm just looking out for you now buy my overpriced crap that doesn't do anything oh and by the way hate the poor, they're lazy and just want to take your money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Haha yes so we provide so many opportunities, truly it is a puzzle why poor people have poor kids who stay poor. Leo Showers posted:but you see it's because the poor people have trouble thinking, so really we should just make the decisions for them, that will make them less poor! To be clear, poverty probably does have cognitive load and mental effects, and there's plenty of good research showing that people who have little money have difficulty engaging in long-term planning. It's just that this isn't a part of that good research.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I actually think proving to people that there's reasons is pretty important. Those reasons are currently social policy failing to provide opportunities, and the many ways we punish the poor for being poor. I'm sure stress and nutrition hurt the development of poor kids (and are well worth studying in any case), but the reality is they aren't provided even close to the same opportunities, and that sentence from the article makes it sound like poor people are failing to succeed despite our best efforts to help them, and it's all some big mystery why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Those reasons are currently social policy failing to provide opportunities, and the many ways we punish the poor for being poor. I'm sure stress and nutrition hurt the development of poor kids (and are well worth studying in any case), but the reality is they aren't provided even close to the same opportunities, and that sentence from the article makes it sound like poor people are failing to succeed despite our best efforts to help them, and it's all some big mystery why. Oh trust me I know. I was one of those kids who grew up on powdered milk and hot dogs and vienna sausages. poo poo sucks but tons of assholes seem to think that "oh well if you just tried harder in school you would have done better" and then look loving confused when I tell them "I worked 40 to 60 hours a week all through high school and more during the summer because my parents couldn't afford to even buy me new glasses - it made it pretty loving hard to apply to scholarships and write essays for them" Although with all that - I still got vaccinated. Thanks county health center.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:52
|
|