That was an interesting read. One thing that stood out is that 20% is a heck of a large amount of GDP to be based on Oil and Gas - price fluctuations are gonna play some havoc with the economy. It's also worth noting that there are very few countries you'd actually want to live in that are that dependent on oil. There's no correlation between "having lots of petro-dollars" and "being a non-basket case of a country".
That was an interesting read...
I watched the debate last night.
Salmond's weakness was to try to play the audience by wasting his allotted time making too many jokes or attacking the Tories, rather than trying to discuss the important issues. Not as fun, certainly, but would have been more effective for making the case of 'yes'.
Salmond's weakness was to try to play the audience by wasting his allotted time making too many jokes or attacking the Tories, rather than trying to discuss the important issues. Not as fun, certainly, but would have been more effective for making the case of 'yes'.
Consensus appears to be Salmond got absolutely rinsed, especially on all the important stuff such as currency, the economy, lack of currency union, pensions etc.?
I didn't see the debate, mind, but if so I'm hardly surprised.
I didn't see the debate, mind, but if so I'm hardly surprised.
It's being repeated on BBC Parliament tonight (at risk of 'being' Chinny, shame on ITV for not carrying it live last night across the network).
Salmond just couldn't answer the questions when challenged. I'd never heard Darling debate before: he came across as for more confident, far more in control of issues rather than personalities, and once he got going after a stuttering start really showed how weak the Yes case is.
Salmond just couldn't answer the questions when challenged. I'd never heard Darling debate before: he came across as for more confident, far more in control of issues rather than personalities, and once he got going after a stuttering start really showed how weak the Yes case is.
I do think Darling comes across far too prickly and defensive, but the core of his points was strong. Salmond seemed more obsessed with trying to quote Darling out of context to try to make his argument for him, but that had virtually no impact at all.
One thing that made me chuckle was the dim tactic of Salmond stepping out from behind the podium when responding to an audience question. Someone has obviously told him to do that because it 'helps personalise yourself to the audience', thereby making him seem more approachable. Dreary.
Even the demagogic twat at Whinge has nothing positive to say about it, except that one poll thinks Salmond won it. Strange how only the polls that favour the Yes position are to be relied upon
Really can't wait for this shit to be over now. All of the information we're going to get about it is in, and the next 6 weeks will be increasingly shrill paraphrased repetition in the attempt to sway the undecideds.
One thing that made me chuckle was the dim tactic of Salmond stepping out from behind the podium when responding to an audience question. Someone has obviously told him to do that because it 'helps personalise yourself to the audience', thereby making him seem more approachable. Dreary.
Even the demagogic twat at Whinge has nothing positive to say about it, except that one poll thinks Salmond won it. Strange how only the polls that favour the Yes position are to be relied upon
Really can't wait for this shit to be over now. All of the information we're going to get about it is in, and the next 6 weeks will be increasingly shrill paraphrased repetition in the attempt to sway the undecideds.
This has probably been covered a thousand times before, but do you get a vote, Gnomes?
Yep. Eligibility as follows:
* a British citizen living in Scotland
* a European Union citizen living in Scotland, or
* a qualifying Commonwealth citizen living in Scotland
So even Canadians here temporarily can vote, for example. I had originally heard that you had to have lived here for a year, but I don't seem to see that in any voting requirements.
Edit: Actually the only limit seems to be the deadline to register to vote, which is 2nd September. So if you've got a valid address here by then, you're in.
* a British citizen living in Scotland
* a European Union citizen living in Scotland, or
* a qualifying Commonwealth citizen living in Scotland
So even Canadians here temporarily can vote, for example. I had originally heard that you had to have lived here for a year, but I don't seem to see that in any voting requirements.
Edit: Actually the only limit seems to be the deadline to register to vote, which is 2nd September. So if you've got a valid address here by then, you're in.
Do PO Boxes count?
Stu is in the Mail again after last nights debate,
Mail having a pop at the Cybernats, does make them look like bastards mind.
Am 30 mins into the debate (have it on in the background, Salmond seems to be trying to be very pally with the audience.
Quote:
Wings is in fact ‘Reverend’ Stuart Campbell, 46, a former video games journalist from Denny, Stirlingshire, who has built up a following of around 7,000 subscribers on the micro-blogging site after nearly 50,000 tweets.
‘Followers’ is an apposite term, as Wings has grown into something of a cult – so much so that many of them willingly donate cash to the blog to fund ventures such as opinion polls – and some of Campbell’s ‘wages’.
But nothing is quite as it seems with the ‘Reverend’ (a claim no one has yet verified; last night, the Church of Scotland told the Mail it had no record of Campbell as a Kirk minister).
Campbell lives in Bath, Somerset (with his pet rats), which means he cannot even vote in the independence referendum.
‘Followers’ is an apposite term, as Wings has grown into something of a cult – so much so that many of them willingly donate cash to the blog to fund ventures such as opinion polls – and some of Campbell’s ‘wages’.
But nothing is quite as it seems with the ‘Reverend’ (a claim no one has yet verified; last night, the Church of Scotland told the Mail it had no record of Campbell as a Kirk minister).
Campbell lives in Bath, Somerset (with his pet rats), which means he cannot even vote in the independence referendum.
Mail having a pop at the Cybernats, does make them look like bastards mind.
Am 30 mins into the debate (have it on in the background, Salmond seems to be trying to be very pally with the audience.
That reads like the author knows Stu personally. Perhaps an old games journo?
It does, and none of it matters to the validity of his writing one bit.
The rats have been mentioned before in the mail, as has where he lives. A ahrsher man would suggest it was all included to color one's opinion of the man when one reads it.
MaliA wrote:
The rats have been mentioned before in the mail, as has where he lives. A ahrsher man would suggest it was all included to color one's opinion of the man when one reads it.
Errr I think the 'before' is the self-same time, as the article linked is from January.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
MaliA wrote:
The rats have been mentioned before in the mail, as has where he lives. A ahrsher man would suggest it was all included to color one's opinion of the man when one reads it.
Errr I think the 'before' is the self-same time, as the article linked is from January.
yeh sorry, that was my bad, was googling cybenats and that poped up, checked the date in the top right not the one on the tag line...doh
Looks like the SNP knives are out for Salmond?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... fe-4015023
Quote:
Observers were astonished when he used a large part of precious TV time to ask Darling about claims that Scots would have to drive on the right-hand side of the road if there was a Yes vote.
He also asked about bizarre claims Scotland would be more vulnerable to attacks from outer space.
The source said: “Those questions ate up an awful lot of time and were a wasted opportunity.
“People make mistakes but he didn’t do as well as he should have done. It didn’t go well.”
Other sources, including MSPs, were also critical of Salmond’s performance.
One said: “It was a bad night.”
Another added: “It was what it was. Now we have to pick ourselves up and prepare for the next one.”
Asked if the debate was “a bit of a disaster”, one MSP echoed a famous quote from 90s TV show House of Cards. “You may say that,” the source said. “I couldn’t possibly comment.”
He also asked about bizarre claims Scotland would be more vulnerable to attacks from outer space.
The source said: “Those questions ate up an awful lot of time and were a wasted opportunity.
“People make mistakes but he didn’t do as well as he should have done. It didn’t go well.”
Other sources, including MSPs, were also critical of Salmond’s performance.
One said: “It was a bad night.”
Another added: “It was what it was. Now we have to pick ourselves up and prepare for the next one.”
Asked if the debate was “a bit of a disaster”, one MSP echoed a famous quote from 90s TV show House of Cards. “You may say that,” the source said. “I couldn’t possibly comment.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... fe-4015023
Quote:
Observers were astonished when he used a large part of precious TV time to ask Darling about claims that Scots would have to drive on the right-hand side of the road if there was a Yes vote.
He also asked about bizarre claims Scotland would be more vulnerable to attacks from outer space.
He also asked about bizarre claims Scotland would be more vulnerable to attacks from outer space.
That was a proper face palm moment, and really made Salmond look pathetic, as well as wasting time.
Of course, if I were the grand vizier of a free Scotland, I'd switch to right hand driving just for the hell of it.
Whilst I think of it, what did our 'Yes' people make of it?
Kern wrote:
Whilst I think of it, what did our 'Yes' people make of it?
It was a glorious victory! Salmond won in a landslide! Darling lies with every word and was shown up as the reptilian shapeshifter he surely is!
Curiosity wrote:
Kern wrote:
Whilst I think of it, what did our 'Yes' people make of it?
It was a glorious victory! Salmond won in a landslide! Darling lies with every word and was shown up as the reptilian shapeshifter he surely is!
The fact that Stu wasn't crowing from the rafters about Teh Great Salmond Victory!!11 told me all I needed to know, without even having to bother watching the debate.
Since when is house of cards from the 90s
http://transport-era.net/results/virtue ... onference/
according to revstu, the debastew didnt go that bad.. independents liked salmond... dutch press only picked up "the independence movement seems to have lost its momentum , scotts are evaluating their economic gains now"
http://transport-era.net/results/virtue ... onference/
according to revstu, the debastew didnt go that bad.. independents liked salmond... dutch press only picked up "the independence movement seems to have lost its momentum , scotts are evaluating their economic gains now"
romanista wrote:
Since when is house of cards from the 90s
The US version is a remake of a British series from 1990 that was shown, by chance, at the same time as the defenestration of Mrs Thatcher.
Francis Urquhart is charmingly evil.
More interesting post-debate synopsis in The Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... our-party/
Quote:
Normally, Salmond’s Seventies stand-up schtick works well on TV, but not tonight. The lights were unflattering (looked like a walrus of advancing years) and when he walked out from behind the podium to talk direct to the audience "Obama-style", the mic didn’t follow behind – leaving him mouthing silent words for thirty seconds. But he also met his match in Alistair Darling.
Hitherto, Darling has carried an image of worthy but dull – but it’ll be all change after tonight. He was angry, clever, funny and (this was the best bit) KNEW SOME STUFF ABOUT ECONOMICS.
Salmond walked into every trap on the NHS, currency unions and pensions. And when Darling asked him directly what he’d do about the black hole in Scotland’s finances, Salmond gave an answer that should terrify everyone: end austerity to reduce the deficit. Mr Salmond apparently wants to turn Scotland into the European equivalent of Cuba. Minus the nice weather.
The debate probably won’t dramatically change the polls, but it might solidify the pro-Union vote and make a few undecideds quietly edge towards saying "no". Not only because Salmond proved so poor under scrutiny but also because the audience gave an unfavourable impression of the nationalist crowd. One young girl said that she felt too much money was going on pensions and not enough on promotion of Gaelic. Another asked Darling if he lived in Scotland because, after all, he didn’t vote for the SNP. Make no mistake – there is a nasty side to nationalism that simply is not found in unionism. Tribal, small minded.
Hitherto, Darling has carried an image of worthy but dull – but it’ll be all change after tonight. He was angry, clever, funny and (this was the best bit) KNEW SOME STUFF ABOUT ECONOMICS.
Salmond walked into every trap on the NHS, currency unions and pensions. And when Darling asked him directly what he’d do about the black hole in Scotland’s finances, Salmond gave an answer that should terrify everyone: end austerity to reduce the deficit. Mr Salmond apparently wants to turn Scotland into the European equivalent of Cuba. Minus the nice weather.
The debate probably won’t dramatically change the polls, but it might solidify the pro-Union vote and make a few undecideds quietly edge towards saying "no". Not only because Salmond proved so poor under scrutiny but also because the audience gave an unfavourable impression of the nationalist crowd. One young girl said that she felt too much money was going on pensions and not enough on promotion of Gaelic. Another asked Darling if he lived in Scotland because, after all, he didn’t vote for the SNP. Make no mistake – there is a nasty side to nationalism that simply is not found in unionism. Tribal, small minded.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... our-party/
That's some balanced reporting right there 
Grim... wrote:
That's some balanced reporting right there
I think there's plenty of nastiness to go round for both sides!
Grim... wrote:
That's some balanced reporting right there
It's not reporting though, it's a blog opinion piece. There's writing for the (allegedly) impartial official story, and there's ranting about what you really think.
edit: @ Grim...
Possibly, but personally I'll take what reasonably august sources like The Telegraph have to say in the matter over and above some shouty/ranty twitter feed and/or absurdly partisan one-man blog.
Anyway, I'm only quoting it for interest; not saying I agree with every word. As stated, I haven't even seen the debate. Quoting something in this context is not necessarily endorsement?
Possibly, but personally I'll take what reasonably august sources like The Telegraph have to say in the matter over and above some shouty/ranty twitter feed and/or absurdly partisan one-man blog.
Anyway, I'm only quoting it for interest; not saying I agree with every word. As stated, I haven't even seen the debate. Quoting something in this context is not necessarily endorsement?
Just clarifying the distinction between 'balanced reporting' when it's not an official story. You wouldn't expected a blog post to be balanced, is what I'm saying.
I'd take the opinion of a rusty shit-encrusted spoon over a frothing cybernat, anyway
I'd take the opinion of a rusty shit-encrusted spoon over a frothing cybernat, anyway
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Just clarifying the distinction between 'balanced reporting' when it's not an official story. You wouldn't expected a blog post to be balanced, is what I'm saying.
I'd take the opinion of a rusty shit-encrusted spoon over a frothing cybernat, anyway
I'd take the opinion of a rusty shit-encrusted spoon over a frothing cybernat, anyway
Oh sure, agreed.
(On both counts
) Apparently, the punters/betting public have spoken as regards Salmond's performance and perceived chances of a Yes victory:
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index. ... ys-debate/
Quote:
The time for recovery is getting shorter
The betting on the Scottish IndyRef has moved further to NO during the day even though, as yet, we have yet to see the first full post debate referendum poll.
The latest price traded on Betfair as I write, (1420) was at the 7.4 level which converts to a 13.5% chance. In hour before Tuesday night’s event it was in the 20-24% – so the latest betting reflects a significant fall.
YES has been lower than this on Betfair but only £36 has been matched a prices that reflect longer odds. That’s absolute chickenfeed in a market that’s already seen a total of £1.316m matched.
The problem was, of course, was that Tuesday night had been billed beforehand by many in the YES camp as the moment when the tide would turn. Salmond was going to come out of this triumphant and his accusations that NO’s case was based on “scaremongering” would hit home.
Yet that didn’t happen and Salmond’s personal attacks on Darling went down badly.
But this can change. In the next debate Salmond, surely, will have learned some lessons and a victory for the SNP leader could be on the cards.
The betting on the Scottish IndyRef has moved further to NO during the day even though, as yet, we have yet to see the first full post debate referendum poll.
The latest price traded on Betfair as I write, (1420) was at the 7.4 level which converts to a 13.5% chance. In hour before Tuesday night’s event it was in the 20-24% – so the latest betting reflects a significant fall.
YES has been lower than this on Betfair but only £36 has been matched a prices that reflect longer odds. That’s absolute chickenfeed in a market that’s already seen a total of £1.316m matched.
The problem was, of course, was that Tuesday night had been billed beforehand by many in the YES camp as the moment when the tide would turn. Salmond was going to come out of this triumphant and his accusations that NO’s case was based on “scaremongering” would hit home.
Yet that didn’t happen and Salmond’s personal attacks on Darling went down badly.
But this can change. In the next debate Salmond, surely, will have learned some lessons and a victory for the SNP leader could be on the cards.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index. ... ys-debate/
I think I might stick a few quid on NO at that price. Certainly a good chance of hedging he bet for a profit nearer the time.
Curiosity wrote:
I think I might stick a few quid on NO at that price.
A few quid, Curio?
Guardian wrote:
Businessman stakes record £600,000 bet on Scottish independence no vote
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... dependence
Kern wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
I think I might stick a few quid on NO at that price.
A few quid, Curio?
Guardian wrote:
Businessman stakes record £600,000 bet on Scottish independence no vote
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... dependence
That's beer money for Curio.
Curiosity wrote:
I think I might stick a few quid on NO at that price. Certainly a good chance of hedging he bet for a profit nearer the time.
Personally I will show my arse on the Town Hall steps if there's a Yes vote. I've never been more certain of anything in my life - especially given the events of the last week.
The 'debate' on the Yes side has descended into the realms of space monster attacks from outer space and 'secret' oil fields; the in-fighting has now started in earnest and STILL absolutely no meaningful answers re. currency, rUK currency union, pensions, the economy, membership of the EU mere days now before the vote... you know, minor stuff like that. Still, poor old David Starkey is getting it in the neck over at Wings, so that'll tell 'em.
I'm starting to feel like I'm intruding on private grief in terms of non nasty nat type, moderate Yes voters (i.e. a sizeable chunk of them). In truth, I believe that a reasonable, very well thought out and run, non-hateful campaign that actually faced economic and other realities (and provided credible, honest answers) could have conceivably - just - borne fruit for them. But the SNP reality, with the various other personalities involved, is just a gaping wide open goal IMO. The ineptitude and naivety is truly breathtaking.
Would be very interested to know Cookie's view on the debate, you still reading the thread cookie?
Am not looking at deriding your view point would just like to know how you as a yes voter thought of it.
Am not looking at deriding your view point would just like to know how you as a yes voter thought of it.
Cavey wrote:
I'm starting to feel like I'm intruding on private grief in terms of non nasty nat type, moderate Yes voters (i.e. a sizeable chunk of them). In truth, I believe that a reasonable, very well thought out and run, non-hateful campaign that actually faced economic and other realities (and provided credible, honest answers) could have conceivably - just - borne fruit for them. But the SNP reality, with the various other personalities involved, is just a gaping wide open goal IMO. The ineptitude and naivety is truly breathtaking.
Yes, I continually think that by promising a New Jerusalem the Yes side have exposed far too many holes in their plans. I note that people here, as well as Yes materials and Salmon's opening speech always turn to the chld poverty question. We all want an end to poverty and this is a serious question, but just saying that it can only be done by independence leads us to ask 'how will you pay for it' and 'why can't you work on this within the existing framework'.
As for all the other questions, rather than saying that they'll keep the pound (copyright Billy Hague, 2001), stay in the beloved EU, maintain services at current levels as a minimum, had they just said 'we can't promise anything, but we'll fight for the best deal for Scotland', I would have had more confidence in their views as they would have been frank with the public about the risks. Promising the earth and a smooth transition just builds up expectations that are likely to be cruelly crushed.
The burden of proof in this case is on the Yes camp. Independence is a hell of a change, and one that won't be reversible. I just haven't heard any argument that holds up to scrutiny, despite going through almost every study I can lay my hands on.
To those in Scotland who are already decided: what arguments might make you change your mind?
Slightly Green wrote:
Would be very interested to know Cookie's view on the debate, you still reading the thread cookie?
Am not looking at deriding your view point would just like to know how you as a yes voter thought of it.
Am not looking at deriding your view point would just like to know how you as a yes voter thought of it.
This. Cookie, I too really want to hear your views, and it's great that someone your age is into politics and cares about things. I hope the campaign has been encouraging your peers to look wider and to realise that politics and voting matter.
Kern wrote:
To those in Scotland who are already decided: what arguments might make you change your mind?
Absolutely nothing at all.
I would be open to the notion of independence if I believed the government was (wo)manned by even-headed, strictly business-like intelligent individuals that could argue a credible case for total autonomy.
Another way to think of it is the manager of a local Tesco deciding that he's had it with Head Office because they're not investing enough in his branch, so he wants to leave. Of course, in leaving, you lose the resources, buying power, economies of scale, administrative overheads, financial agreements, preferential trading rights and a whole host of other perks you enjoy as part of the network.
But you insist that you, by yourself, can still get all of those things back afterwards, and not only will it not be worse, it'll be better. Insanely better. A fucking utopia of a
Tesco. What's your rationale for that view? Bloody-mindedness and wistful belief that isn't backed up by a single solid fact.
No argument can make the reality change. You'd have to have your logic compromised to believe it. Resentment towards Head Office, as well as a fierce pride in the status of your own piddly little branch can make you believe funny things, but you're still dead fucking wrong and destined to fail.
Have any other countries done something similar recently (or sort-of recently)?
[edit]Aha! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21344264
[editedit]What a crap article
[edit]Aha! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21344264
[editedit]What a crap article
The Velvet Divorce between the Czechs and Slovaks is probably the ur-example of how to secede swiftly and peacefully. But I'd argue that the circumstances were a heck of a lot different in post-Communist Europe to the Scottish case.
Czechoslovakia is probably the nearest sort of example, although seemed to be much more welcomed by both parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolutio ... Separation
Of course, major differences there in terms of relative country size and attitude of the respective people in each.
Call me spiteful, but if Scotland did vote Yes, I really wouldn't want a currency union. Not because I think that would be better, but because I'd want the UK government to really make it as fucking difficult for us as possible, to learn what it really means to go it alone.
Of course, a struggling Scotland wouldn't really benefit the UK, and having to dick around with currency clearly would make a currency union more sensible (despite also making Scotland still bound by whatever the Bank of England thinks is best for rUK), but I would want them to follow through on the hard line 'No currency union' position to make Alex Salmond and the SNP look like the delusional fucking faeries that they clearly are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolutio ... Separation
Of course, major differences there in terms of relative country size and attitude of the respective people in each.
Call me spiteful, but if Scotland did vote Yes, I really wouldn't want a currency union. Not because I think that would be better, but because I'd want the UK government to really make it as fucking difficult for us as possible, to learn what it really means to go it alone.
Of course, a struggling Scotland wouldn't really benefit the UK, and having to dick around with currency clearly would make a currency union more sensible (despite also making Scotland still bound by whatever the Bank of England thinks is best for rUK), but I would want them to follow through on the hard line 'No currency union' position to make Alex Salmond and the SNP look like the delusional fucking faeries that they clearly are.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Call me spiteful, but if Scotland did vote Yes, I really wouldn't want a currency union. Not because I think that would be better, but because I'd want the UK government to really make it as fucking difficult for us as possible, to learn what it really means to go it alone.
Salmond has been saying that in the event of a yes vote, a currency union would be the sovereign wish of the Scottish people. He handily forgets that the Westminister government would be charged with getting the best deal for the people of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and this might not match the best interests for Scotland.
Kern wrote:
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Call me spiteful, but if Scotland did vote Yes, I really wouldn't want a currency union. Not because I think that would be better, but because I'd want the UK government to really make it as fucking difficult for us as possible, to learn what it really means to go it alone.
Salmond has been saying that in the event of a yes vote, a currency union would be the sovereign wish of the Scottish people. He handily forgets that the Westminister government would be charged with getting the best deal for the people of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and this might not match the best interests for Scotland.
There will be some negotiations, I'm sure. There will be things rUK wants that Scotland has, and vice versa. Something will be hammered out as it will be in the best interests of both countries not to cut their noses off to spite their faces.
rUK? Does that just mean "The rest of the UK"?
Malc
Malc
American Nervoso wrote:
There will be some negotiations, I'm sure. There will be things rUK wants that Scotland has, and vice versa. Something will be hammered out as it will be in the best interests of both countries not to cut their noses off to spite their faces.
And this is what their whole argument is predicated on. Despite all three major parties saying 'There will be no currency union'. The SNP have resolutely insisted there will be, and this is Salmond's only argument as to why he has no plan B, because plan A will definitely happen despite all indicators to the contrary.
Yes, it might be a campaign tactic, but I hope it isn't. Even if it is, you have to show you have a credible alternative and be able to state it when the question is asked of you. This is why his failure to answer it and instead reference the 'anonymous' minister who said a currency union would probably happen is appallingly weak.
It's a fucking nonsense. All eggs in one basket type of gambling, and if it fails to pay off, the red faces will not compensate for the uncertainty of a tagged pound/new currency/who the fuck knows.
Cheerfully this kind of thing will sway some of those undecideds into the No camp, and the Yesperation folk will invent even more psychological rabbit holes to convince themselves that this is actually an ideal situation to be in.
American Nervoso wrote:
Google free since 2014!
Grim... wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Google free since 2014!
I technically didn't use their website, so it's like I was using an internet condom.
American Nervoso wrote:
Grim... wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Google free since 2014!
I technically didn't use their website, so it's like I was using an internet condom.
Sounds like Linux
Grim... wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Grim... wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Google free since 2014!
I technically didn't use their website, so it's like I was using an internet condom.
Sounds like Linux
Ribbed for... our pleasure?
Page 17 of 41 [ 2009 posts ]