• Jezebel
  • celebrity
  • sex
  • fashion
  • Profile logout login

#daveleach#obicnalaz

Jezebel

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #snapjudgment,
  • #groupthink,
  • etc.

New York, 12:00 AM
Sun Dec 6
21 posts in the last 24 hours

Tip your editors:

Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter

Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter

Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter

Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter

Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter

Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter

Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers

Lizzie Skurnick

Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter


Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
1770 Subscribers
Jezebel
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of Habibiti Habibiti
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    I don't believe in the death penalty, but I would still not be okay with the argument, "I killed an executioner so that he would not lethally inject the people on death row."

    This defense will not be accepted, but I'm appalled that his lawyer can even consider it as an option. #scottroeder
     Reply
    GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11) promoted this comment Habibiti was starred Habibiti was unstarred
    Image of whynotshesaid whynotshesaid
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    The AP is reporting that he is not using the necessity defense and that there is no such thing in Kansas. #scottroeder
     Reply
    whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred
    Image of envirodesigner envirodesigner
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    It just seems that you can use the "Necessity Defense" to have an abortion. As in "this baby is going to kill me I have to have an abortion" or why not even apply it to the anti-choicers "They are trying to kill me because I want to have an abortion so I killed them to protect myself."

    In the end Roeder has to be held accountable for his actions. This isn't a war at all between the life of an unborn child and choice. The decision has already been made by a court and rather than respect the Supreme Court's decision he goes off and murder a doctor when he would have used a non-violent approach.
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment Edited by envirodesigner at 11/10/09 5:19 PM envirodesigner was starred envirodesigner was unstarred
    Image of Valkyrie607 Valkyrie607
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    The fact that the Forced-Birth Brigade focuses the bulk of their ire on the doctors who perform abortions, rather than the women who request them, further demonstrates their contempt for women.

    If they were really consistent, they'd be out there shooting women too.

    Instead, they view women as agency-less vessels for their morality plays. A woman seeking an abortion must be saved--from herself!--by murdering the doctor who is willing to assist her.

    Ah well, if they were logical, they wouldn't be evangelical Christians, now would they? #scottroeder
     Reply
    morninggloria promoted this comment Valkyrie607 was starred Valkyrie607 was unstarred
    Image of supremecourtjester supremecourtjester
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    The defense is only used where all would agree that the action taken was necessary and the harm it occasioned is slight. In law school I taught that of you are wandering in the woods starving to death and you come upon a cabin you can break in and eat some food you find inside without being convicted of burglary. You can momentarily speed to avoid an accident, etc.
    The tough one is: could you kill a terrorist about to set of a nuclear bomb in a city subway?
    This is a perversion of the idea--you can't call it a necessity because you disagree with the Supreme Court's rulings. You can't kidnap a minor and have sex with her because you feel it necessary and the laws against sex with minors to be wrong. #scottroeder
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj promoted this comment supremecourtjester was starred supremecourtjester was unstarred
    Image of Peebers says what? Peebers says what?
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    "So there's no denying by rational people the humanity of an unborn child, and the only difference in the unborn child and you and me is size, age and location."
    Wait wait wait! Is he seriously referring to a womb as a location? That’s not a location sir; it’s an organic incubator inside another human being and the fetus is entirely dependant on it. I dunno about you Michael Hirsh but I personally feel that’s a pretty big difference. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Peebers says what? was starred Peebers says what? was unstarred
    Image of Valkyrie607 Valkyrie607
    11/10/09

    @Peebers says what?: Yeah, that one always gets me. Like when abortion opponents liken themselves to abolitionists because, well, slavery was once legal.

    Excuse me, but black people don't live inside other people's bodies. In case you hadn't noticed. #scottroeder
     Reply
    boxspelunker promoted this comment Valkyrie607 was starred Valkyrie607 was unstarred
    Image of KikiCanuck KikiCanuck
    11/10/09

    @Peebers says what?: I would have said that intellect, personhood and autonomy also separate most people from an unborn child, but I grant that this might not apply for Mr. Hirsch. #scottroeder
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment KikiCanuck was starred KikiCanuck was unstarred
    Image of Old Jean Gallagher Old Jean Gallagher
    11/10/09

    @Valkyrie607: Well... fetuses of black women live inside other people's bodies. But that's irrelevant, because God only cares about saving the precious white babies. DUH. #scottroeder
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment Old Jean Gallagher was starred Old Jean Gallagher was unstarred
    Image of lizdexia lizdexia
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    Hey lawyer jezzies-

    How much does Roeder's frame of mind matter in this sort of thing? Yes, abortion is a legal medical procedure, but Roeder sincerely believes it is the murder of a child. In his mind, he really was acting in defense of countless others.
    Now obviously I'm not saying this makes him a good guy, or anything other than nuts. But from a theoretical-legal perspective, is there any room to consider his viewpoint and beliefs? Does it mitigate his culpability, or sanity? I don't really think it should, I just don't know much about how the law regards deeply held batshit crazy beliefs. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Anna N. promoted this comment lizdexia was starred lizdexia was unstarred
    Image of Anna N. Anna N.
    11/10/09

    @lizdexia: To me it looks like the legal precedent (esp in the 1993 Kansas case) says that you're only eligible for the necessity defense if you committed a crime to prevent an ILLEGAL act. Moral concerns don't enter into it. Which is not to say that his lawyers, if he manages to get new ones, couldn't try to change that -- but they might not get very far. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Anna N. was starred Anna N. was unstarred
    Image of yvanehtnioj yvanehtnioj
    11/10/09

    @lizdexia: Frame of mind matters if you're pleading insanity, but not if you're pleading a necessity defense. Even if you legitimately think what you're doing is necessary, and you're wrong, you can't use this defense. To borrow an example from elsewhere in this thread, if I shove a person out of the way to stop someone who's about to throw a child off a building, and it turns out that the "child" is a doll, I can't argue necessity as a defense against the assault charge.

    Roeder might honestly believe he was stopping murder, but the law tells us he wasn't, so he can't argue it. (And all that's even beside the fact that even if you think abortion is murder, he didn't prevent an imminent abortion, he murdered a man at church. This defense will never stand for roughly a billion reasons.)
     Reply
    Edited by yvanehtnioj at 11/10/09 4:13 PM yvanehtnioj was starred yvanehtnioj was unstarred
    Image of Anna N. Anna N.
    11/10/09

    @lizdexia: Although downthread there are some examples of situations where preventing, say, an accidental death by hurting someone else might warrant a necessity defense. [jezebel.com] #scottroeder
     Reply
    Anna N. was starred Anna N. was unstarred
    Image of lizdexia lizdexia
    11/10/09

    @all: Thank you for clarifying. This restores some of my faith in the criminal justice system. #scottroeder
     Reply
    lizdexia was starred lizdexia was unstarred
    Image of yvanehtnioj yvanehtnioj
    11/10/09

    @Anna N.: The holding is not that you can't plead necessity unless the action you're trying to stop is illegal; it's that you can't say that murder was necessary to prevent a legal action. It seems convoluted but it makes perfect sense. #scottroeder
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj was starred yvanehtnioj was unstarred
    Image of Lymed Lymed
    11/10/09

    @lizdexia: His frame of mind only matters if he is claiming an insanity defense and whether he thinks abortion is murder means absolutely nothing legally. Even if Tiller was killing people, he couldn't kill him to prevent a murder unless it was imminent. You can't kill somebody because you know they are planning to murder somebody. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred
    Image of Armed with Vitriol Armed with Vitriol
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    I saw a really awesome t-shirt that said something along the lines of Religious Republicans: Saving Cells, Bombing Nations. I really wanted to buy it but then decided it wasn't fair to those Religious Republicans who are pro choice (although I don't know any).

    The t-shirt has a point though. Many are so concerned with the "murder" of fetuses but seemingly unconcerned with all the people already on this planet who suffer and die in horrible ways every day. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Armed with Vitriol was starred Armed with Vitriol was unstarred
    Image of Copper Copper
    11/10/09

    @Armed with Vitriol: I don't know any either. Granted, I am in Texas.

    If you find that shirt, let me know. I want to buy one. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Copper was starred Copper was unstarred
    Image of Jorie Slodki Jorie Slodki
    11/10/09

    @Copper: I want a shirt that says "Former Fetus for Choice" #scottroeder
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj promoted this comment Jorie Slodki was starred Jorie Slodki was unstarred
    Image of Copper Copper
    11/10/09

    @Jorie Slodki: Ooh, that's a good one, too. I want that. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Copper was starred Copper was unstarred
    Image of FrannyR FrannyR
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    If he gets to kill ppl to stop them from doing something that is perfectly legal, I should be allowed to steal ppl's money to prevent them from using it. Otherwise it would be unfair. #scottroeder
     Reply
    FrannyR was starred FrannyR was unstarred
    Image of Erda Erda
    11/10/09

    @FrannyR: Can I take the money that the selfish, "libertarian" boys I went to high school with get from their parents and blow on video game systems and pot, and redistribute it to poor people who actually need it? Does the "necessity defense" cover that? #scottroeder
     Reply
    Erda was starred Erda was unstarred
    Image of FrannyR FrannyR
    11/10/09

    @Erda: Seeing how he couldn't care less about who has an abortion or why, I don't think you need to worry about who you chose to steal from #scottroeder
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment FrannyR was starred FrannyR was unstarred
    Image of vgnvxn vgnvxn
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    "there is a mountain of scientific evidence that shows the humanity of an unborn child" Oh really? "Science" that proves "humanity?" I bet.

    Also, I wish every one of these articles in the MSM that talk about late-term abortion would include a story about the type of women that seek this "choice" - generally they have no other medical option, and these fetuses are very much wanted. It's fucking heartbreaking to imply these families are murderers. fuck. #scottroeder
     Reply
    I_can_still_pitch promoted this comment vgnvxn was starred vgnvxn was unstarred
    Image of theringer theringer
    11/10/09

    @vgnvxn: I could not agree with you more. People argue against these late term abortions as though women find themselves 7 months along in a healthy pregnancy and then say "no baby for me." These are tragic cases where the baby and/or mother would not likely survive birth. These families have enough to deal with without being called murderers.
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment Edited by theringer at 11/10/09 4:16 PM theringer was starred theringer was unstarred
    Image of EkaterinaBallerina EkaterinaBallerina
    11/10/09

    @vgnvxn: Exactly. These families and women have no other choice. Do most of them want to make that choice? Heck no. It's the most painful choice they'll ever have to make, I wish these people would stop trying to make it any worse by implying it's criminal. What's worse, to claim that it's God's will if the mother dies and that medical intervention shouldn't be used to save her life if need be is an argument against any form of medical intervention. I don't want to go as far to correlate a tumor and a fetus but in a way, if a person had a brain tumor that was killing them and could be removed and they could live, why wouldn't you do it? I understand that in this case we're talking a possible human life here, but given the choice between saving a life or losing two, I think I'd pick the former. #scottroeder
     Reply
    EkaterinaBallerina was starred EkaterinaBallerina was unstarred
    Image of KikiCanuck KikiCanuck
    11/10/09

    @theringer, @vgnvxn: Exactly... Esquire published an excellent article this summer called "The Last Abortion Doctor" ([www.esquire.com]) about Dr. Warren Hern, who since George Tiller was killed is the last doctor in the U.S. who specializes in late-term abortions. It should be required reading for anyone who could possibly support this proposed defense, or indeed anyone who identifies as "anti-abortion."

    From the flyer explaining the services offered at Dr. Hern's clinic:
    "Specializing in late abortion for fetal disorders. Outpatient abortion over twenty-six menstrual weeks for selected patients with documented fetal anomaly, fetal demise, or medical indications."

    So, not a capricious change of mind about the baby you're carrying, but rather a heartbreaking decision to end a wanted pregnancy and go home without the baby you have dreamed of, carried, and loved in your arms. Murder is gunning someone down in a church. #scottroeder
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment KikiCanuck was starred KikiCanuck was unstarred
    Image of Luckwouldhaveit Luckwouldhaveit
    11/10/09

    @EkaterinaBallerina: I suppose the saving grace here is that, if Roeder is allowed to bring evidence of the necessity defense at trial, to wit "Dr. Tiller is an evil murderer of babies at the whim of frivolous women who change their minds" then the prosecutor can bring in (willing) patients of Dr. Tiller as witnesses to testify regarding their choosing late-term abortion, ie deformed fetuses who will die at birth and risk the patients' lives in the meantime. Who do you think the jury is going to side with there? #scottroeder
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment Luckwouldhaveit was starred Luckwouldhaveit was unstarred
    Image of Penny Penny
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    Double post, sorry.
     Reply
    Edited by Penny at 11/10/09 3:51 PM Penny was starred Penny was unstarred
    Image of Penny Penny
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    I want to ask this question again because I am genuinely curious and I don't want my previous comment to get buried.

    According to the law, when is the "unlawful" death (i.e. when a pregnant woman is murdered) of a fetus possible? Are there any parameters around this? I assume there are no federal laws and this is decided on a state-by-state basis?

    I know people have been charged with, and I assume convicted, of murdering a fetus. How do we differentiate between something like the Scott Peterson case and other cases when the fetus was in its earlier stages?

    Is the line drawn when a fetus can survive outside of the womb? #scottroeder
     Reply
    Penny was starred Penny was unstarred
    Image of yvanehtnioj yvanehtnioj
    11/10/09

    @Penny: These are state laws, brought up by really really anti-choice people and mostly in the places you'd expect. They vary from being an aggravating factor (like if you assault someone it can be a worse crime if that person is 1. a cop, 2. elderly, 3. a child, 4. pregnant, etc) to a place that defines "citizen" as conception through death (cough*Kansas*cough).

    Even still, murdering a fetus isn't normally a function of the gestational age, but of the act. A doctor performing an abortion wouldn't be charged with murdering a fetus anyway, but a person throwing a pregnant woman down a flight of stairs might (whether it's because she paid him to or not, like that Utah case). #scottroeder
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj was starred yvanehtnioj was unstarred
    Image of scootermom scootermom
    11/10/09

    @Penny: Some states have laws that recognize crimes against fetuses. Fetal homicide, fetal battery, etc. Harming the fetus, zygote or blastocyst is a crime separate from that of harming the pregnant woman.

    Most such laws contain provisions that specifically exclude abortion, or "the actions of the woman in regard to her own fetus" (in other words, self abortion or self harm). Although some states have gone crazy and charged women with child abuse for not seeking medical care or consuming drugs or alcohol.

    The laws are bad, as they elevate the health of the fetus above that of the pregnant woman. #scottroeder
     Reply
    wtfox?! promoted this comment scootermom was starred scootermom was unstarred
    Image of lizdexia lizdexia
    11/10/09

    @Penny: This is a great subject.

    What do folks here think of this? I know these laws are usually proposed by pro-life legislators, but they make a certain amount of sense. If I'm pregnant, and I want the baby, and someone beats the hell out of me for the purpose of ending the pregnancy, I have just been deprived of a wanted child. I would absolutely want them charged with murder. But I have to recognize the logical inconsistency implied by both assigning a fetus personhood for the purposes of murder charges while keeping abortion legal. I'm not really sure what the answer is, except that emotionally, killing a wanted fetus in utero seems much, much graver than aggravated assault. #scottroeder
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj promoted this comment lizdexia was starred lizdexia was unstarred
    Image of yvanehtnioj yvanehtnioj
    11/10/09

    @lizdexia: I don't like these laws because really, even a late stage fetus is not a person. Let's leave personhood (and therefore the ability to be murdered) for after birth. Is it a terrible tragedy when a pregnant woman loses a pregnancy she wanted? Yes. And if you miscarried because a crazy person beat you up, that person should go to jail. But it's fundamentally different from seeing them shoot your two-year-old in the head in front of you, which is murder. A potential life and an extant life are different things, and I think it should stay that way in the law.

    I don't mean to sound unfeeling, but there's a camel's-nose-under-the-tent problem here, where the first law is introduced because a mugger might just kick a pregnant lady in the stomach a bunch of times because he hates babies and OMG HE SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOREVER and every single lawmaker agrees, and now it's on the books. But then more and more laws get introduced and it's not about these extreme violent acts, it's really about classifying the fetus as a human to make an end-run around legal abortion and to control pregnant women. Honestly, next stop is arresting pregnant women who have a glass of wine. I take a hard line against the laws, even though it looks mean-spirited at the far end, because the other end is just as important to me (more important, really, because it affects more women and is more plausible than the crazy-mugger scenario).

    Just my thoughts. #scottroeder
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj was starred yvanehtnioj was unstarred
    Image of lizdexia lizdexia
    11/10/09

    @yvanehtnioj: I completely hear what you're saying. It's one of those nasty areas where no one's going to be happy I think. Emotionally, I'm sure I would feel like my child had been murdered.

    But you're right, using it as an end-run around abortion rights is bad news. And we are getting close to the point where it's easy to imagine arresting women for anything that could potentially endanger a pregnancy.

    I think someone said upthread that some states have laws that make harming a fetus (with exceptions for abortion and acts of self-harm) a crime. That might be the best way to split the difference. #scottroeder
     Reply
    lizdexia was starred lizdexia was unstarred
    Image of Zombies make the heart grow fonder Zombies make the heart grow fonder
    11/10/09

    @lizdexia: Well, in some states it is done specifically to tailor to your concern. If a person attacks you with the intent to cause you to lose the fetus, it is an aggravated offense and within that very statute there is an exception which states this provision may not used in the case of a licensed physician providing an abortion. I don't have a problem with this type of statute because I think it helps protect a vulnerable individual (namely a pregnant woman) from a potential attacker (namely a disgruntled lover who doesn't want her to carry out the pregnancy) and preserves her right to choose. It just happens that in this instance, it protects the right to choice in a way that is opposite to what we are used to seeing. #scottroeder
     Reply
    Zombies make the heart grow fonder was starred Zombies make the heart grow fonder was unstarred
    Image of GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11) GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11)
    11/11/09

    @yvanehtnioj: Women already are being prosecuted for homicide and child neglect under these laws for harming their fetuses through substance abuse. You're right, as soon as you start regarding the fetus as a separate entity with separate legal rights, you are striking at a woman's ability to have integrity over her own body. One homeless woman was sentenced to 12 years in prison when her pregnancy ended in a stillbirth, even though there was no evidence that drug use caused the stillbirth.

    [www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org]

    Instead of these "unborn victims" laws, people who kill pregnant women should just be charged with murdering a woman, because that is a pretty serious crime in and of itself. People who harm a fetus or cause a miscarriage could be charged with assault- which should be considered a serious crime anyway!
     Reply
    Edited by GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11) at 11/11/09 12:11 AM GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11) was starred GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11) was unstarred
    Image of yvanehtnioj yvanehtnioj
    11/11/09

    @GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11): Right on. Also women can be chained to operating tables and forced to undergo C-sections because a judge says so ([feminocracy.wordpress.com]). It's not a slippery slope fallacy when anti-choicers with any power at all are greasing their fucking skis.

    These laws are meant to give the government an "in" to control women, and that's exactly what they do. #scottroeder
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj was starred yvanehtnioj was unstarred
    Image of bumbleleaf bumbleleaf
    11/11/09

    @Penny: Re: the "line" being drawn at viability outside the womb. This idea makes some kind of intuitive sense, i.e. we seem to feel that late term abortions are wronger than early ones.

    However, it's not really a good tool for figuring out when "personhood" begins, because the age of viability has been shifting over time. Even 10 or 15 years ago, babies born at 32 weeks were unlikely to live. Now, babies born at 24 weeks, while they have tons of complications, can be expected to live. So, since changes in medicine have changed viability -- have they also changed the point at which "personhood" begins?

    So there is no point at which a switch is flipped and voila, the fetus is independent now! I really wish people would leave this question out of it. Not you, Penny, but anti-choicers who think they have science on their side.
     Reply
    yvanehtnioj promoted this comment Edited by bumbleleaf at 11/11/09 12:59 AM bumbleleaf was starred bumbleleaf was unstarred
    Image of emfish55 emfish55
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    Why bother with laws at all? After all, we have folks like Roeder and Hirsch who already know how we're all supposed to act. They'll just run down a list of all the people on Earth, put checkmarks next to the good ones, and kill the rest.

    But then what will Jesus do when he comes back for the second coming? Dude's got some badass shit planned. Maybe we ought to just leave the final reckoning up to the big guy, after all. #scottroeder
     Reply
    emfish55 was starred emfish55 was unstarred
    Image of sybann sybann
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    That junior high school grade artwork is enough for me to say life without parole (at LEAST). The only thing missing are fighter jets and bomb dashes. #scottroeder
     Reply
    sybann was starred sybann was unstarred
    Image of Susan B. Susan B.
    11/10/09

    In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
    Acquitting him on those grounds would be saying that it is officially legal to kill abortion doctors.

    I know we all know this, but I wanted to say it explicitly. #scottroeder
     Reply
    thatblackgirl promoted this comment Susan B. was starred Susan B. was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Jezebel account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.