After Hours "Misogyny on boards" sticky...

Penny Tration

tritium wrote: »

Misandry is so much of a problem that the latest thread on it in AH got closed quickly and everyone told to move it to humanities......

Misogyny thread: 61 pages Misandry thread: given last rites after 5 pages

Yeah, I can feel how much the issue is cared about

maybe it was moved to humanities because it was basically full of people joking around, and Humanities would be a better place for serious discussion, considering the train wreck that became of the misogyny thread?

tritium

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

maybe it was moved to humanities because it was basically full of people joking around, and Humanities would be a better place for serious discussion, considering the train wreck that became of the misogyny thread?

Given that the thread was (IMHO) pretty good natured, yes some joking around but no less so than any other AH thread and is very much the type of thread routinely discussed in AH that seems a little convenient. Given the timing relative to the misogyny thread I think scepticism is natural here. If nothing else it sends a very poor signal to so blatantly hide discussion away in a less used forum

humanji

tritium wrote: »

Misandry is so much of a problem that the latest thread on it in AH got closed quickly and everyone told to move it to humanities......

Misogyny thread: 61 pages Misandry thread: given last rites after 5 pages

Yeah, I can feel how much the issue is cared about

And if the misandry thread came first, the post count would be the other way around and both threads would still now be locked. AH isn't the place for the discussion created by the OP, as the misogyny thread proved. The misandry thread was just retreading the exact same ground but now with "wacky" comments taking sly digs at the previous threads and users.

P. Breathnach

I think that there is some unnecessary rules-lawyering going on here.

First, if the mods take the position that misogyny is a problem and make a statement that they will be particularly alert to it, that does not mean that that posters get a free pass on all other types of misbehaviour. I think it likely that in becoming sensitised to misogyny, they will also be more sensitive to misandry, and deal with it also.

Second, it's tedious to argue out definitions of misogyny. There is an element of informality in how things are done here, but subject to an over-riding commitment to fairness. It usually works fairly well. If mods needed to consult a lengthy and highly-detailed manual in relation to acting on posts, we'd soon have no mods. Even if we did find mods to operate in such an environment, I don't think the quality of modding would be improved.

I have declared myself a feminist on Boards. That does not mean that I identify with a near-trivial number of extremist nutcases who also declare themselves as feminists. It's tiresome to be categorised with them by posters who do not to allow that mainstream feminists are not nutcases, and whose posts reflect their distorted definition of feminism.

oscarBravo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

...your post is implying that broadstrokes criticism of feminism is unacceptable as it implies misygony.

Your logic is broken. You're trying to argue that it's OK to criticise an entire movement on the basis of what a minority who identify with that movement believe.

This is still a tangent, and I still don't want to continue down it. If you want to criticise radical feminism, criticise radical feminism - in the appropriate forum. If you feel that you should have the right to criticise all feminists on the basis of your dislike of some feminists, and that you're somehow being oppressed when it's pointed out to you that your logic is flawed, then I really don't know what else to say to you.

Micky Dolenz

tritium wrote: »

Misandry is so much of a problem that the latest thread on it in AH got closed quickly and everyone told to move it to humanities......

Misogyny thread: 61 pages Misandry thread: given last rites after 5 pages

Yeah, I can feel how much the issue is cared about

The thread was troll bait. They can smell stuff like that. You don't see the crap we delete.

Either way, it turned into a discussion on some toddler show on cbeebs.

tritium

humanji wrote: »

And if the misandry thread came first, the post count would be the other way around and both threads would still now be locked. AH isn't the place for the discussion created by the OP, as the misogyny thread proved. The misandry thread was just retreading the exact same ground but now with "wacky" comments taking sly digs at the previous threads and users.

Really? So where is the line now H? Because for example the 'Is feminism a dirty word' thread is still open and motoring nicely towards a thousand posts. With many of the same arguments you've alluded to therein. If AH isn't the place for a discussion of these issues now (and bearing in mind it has been in the past) surely there should be consistency right? How exactly is it consistent to let one type of gender issues thread run out of steam naturally but slam the door on another? Let me guess? Case by case with plenty of wiggle room?

Micky Dolenz

tritium wrote: »

Really? So where is the line now H? Because for example the 'Is feminism a dirty word' thread is still open and motoring nicely towards a thousand posts. With many of the same arguments you've alluded to therein. If AH isn't the place for a discussion of these issues now (and bearing in mind it has been in the past) surely there should be consistency right? How exactly is it consistent to let one type of gender issues thread run out of steam naturally but slam the door on another? Let me guess? Case by case with plenty of wiggle room?

See post above.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your logic is broken. You're trying to argue that it's OK to criticise an entire movement on the basis of what a minority who identify with that movement believe.

Agreed. It's easy to point to the nutters in any movement to tar the mainstream with. That can go both ways too. Dismissing any critique because "that's not what the mainstream thinks" as a debating tactic. I find it far more interesting to examine some of the tenets of mainstream feminism that are at best debatable and at worst nonsense. Goes for any "ism" too. Sadly AH doesn't seem to be the place for it, anymore than an open debate on religion is.

One eyed Jack

tritium wrote: »

Really? So where is the line now H? Because for example the 'Is feminism a dirty word' thread is still open and motoring nicely towards a thousand posts. With many of the same arguments you've alluded to therein. If AH isn't the place for a discussion of these issues now (and bearing in mind it has been in the past) surely there should be consistency right? How exactly is it consistent to let one type of gender issues thread run out of steam naturally but slam the door on another? Let me guess? Case by case with plenty of wiggle room?

That thread was basically the straw that broke the camel's back. As one poster summarised it nicely -

ah jaysus, this type of thread again...

you'd swear it's a battle of the sexes on the Internet these days. and it's only on the internet, i never discuss this type of stuff in real life with friends or colleagues

AH is experiencing "social injustices fatigue", and a discussion like that really is better off in Humanities, as are all these social injustices threads. It's actually part of the After Hours charter that AH isn't simply a place to post to reach a wider audience, yet that's exactly what you're trying to argue for.

humanji

tritium wrote: »

Really? So where is the line now H? Because for example the 'Is feminism a dirty word' thread is still open and motoring nicely towards a thousand posts. With many of the same arguments you've alluded to therein. If AH isn't the place for a discussion of these issues now (and bearing in mind it has been in the past) surely there should be consistency right? How exactly is it consistent to let one type of gender issues thread run out of steam naturally but slam the door on another? Let me guess? Case by case with plenty of wiggle room?

What's wrong with things being taken on a case by case basis? Surely that's better than blanket bans/infractions for everyone who breaks a rule regardless of what rule and how it was broken? That would just be madness.

RDM_83 again

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your logic is broken. You're trying to argue that it's OK to criticise an entire movement on the basis of what a minority who identify with that movement believe.

This is still a tangent, and I still don't want to continue down it. If you want to criticise radical feminism, criticise radical feminism - in the appropriate forum. If you feel that you should have the right to criticise all feminists on the basis of your dislike of some feminists, and that you're somehow being oppressed when it's pointed out to you that your logic is flawed, then I really don't know what else to say to you.

It is a lazy argument, as i said i caveat my criticism to 3rd wave etc, however this is about moderation, I've shown in my previous post that moderator opinion is that harsh lazy attacks on other belief/social constructs are acceptable. Why is feminism a special case.

K-9

There's a surprise, a discussion on misogyny turns into a moan about extreme feminism. Unfortunately both get equated in the mindset of some and here we are.

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This post was thanked by two current AH mods (k9 and Dr.Bolloko), from my reading of this, any insult to feminism (not feminists) is acceptable as it only insults beliefs not a person

I'l also point out this post from K9


I am happy enough for the actual misogynists and serial re-regs to be banned banned they ruin these threads for everybody not just the people they disparage, I'd be happy enough if the standard of debate in AH was raised, I feel I can make my points about the negatives of modern 1st world feminism without insulting people (that aren't looking to be insulted ), I'd even be happy if whataboutery was discouraged where irrelevant (the same posters that are insulted by whatabourery in feminism threads in an abortion thread will say 'pro-lifers only care about children in the womb'.

I'd just be happy if the rules are clearly and equally applied without preference to the loudest voice or the opinion most in step with moderator views.

Addition: This probably isn't a popular opinion but the most popular opinion on boards.ie isn't always the right one, the thread i linked to from years back had tons of abuse of a trans person and Dev not pulling people on it, a thread from say 2009 2010 would have widespread approval of the idea of sexist jokes being ok, each of these problems would have been solved no matter the current opinion if the rules are not vague and undefinable and are obviously and efficiently enforced.

I don't mod AH any more, think it is over a year ago IIRC!

Mods bye and large don't steer discussions but we are also caretakers of a forum. If an issue is attracting lots of reported posts that is something that needs to be looked at.

donfers

It was dumb to single out misogyny - simple as that, it suggests favouritism or policing of one side of the whole sexism issue alone. Now regardless of the fact that most users of board are males and regardless of the fact that misogyny itself is an inappropriate defintion for a lot of the stuff that is frowned upon, the perception (possibly incorrect) is that men alone are the problem here.

Indeed the post itself then goes on to say it won't tolerate any type of sexism, well then why put "misogyny" in bright lights in the title of the stickie? It's stupid and it gets peoples' backs up for a number of reasons.

The final irony of course is that it is the very definition of sexism itself to treat men and women differently which is exactly what stickies like that do "Girls - we'll look out for you and protect you from the big bad posting misoynists" "Guys - we're not really going to highlight the misandry issue much, it doesn't really exist as far as we can see and even if it does sure you're well able for it"

Potatoeman

I think using the term misogny so flipantly demeans it and many people tune out as soon as its mentioned.

The things mentioned as misognist also seemed to vary widley too. I think a large part of the problem is that there are more male posters so any discussion on gender issues is seen as anti-women.

One eyed Jack

donfers wrote: »

It was dumb to single out misogyny - simple as that, it suggests favouritism or policing of one side of the whole sexism issue alone. Now regardless of the fact that most users of board are males and regardless of the fact that misogyny itself is an inappropriate defintion for a lot of the stuff that is frowned upon, the perception (possibly incorrect) is that men alone are the problem here.

Indeed the post itself then goes on to say it won't tolerate any type of sexism, well then why put "misogyny" in bright lights in the title of the stickie? It's stupid and it gets peoples' backs up for a number of reasons.

The final irony of course is that it is the very definition of sexism itself to treat men and women differently which is exactly what stickies like that do "Girls - we'll look out for you and protect you from the big bad posting misoynists" "Guys - we're not really going to highlight the misandry issue much, it doesn't really exist as far as we can see and even if it does sure you're well able for it"

You'd have to be purposely looking to be victimised to have interpreted the post that way tbh, and when you do that, it's not because of your gender that people don't take you seriously. It's because your perception is so wildly skewed that I'd to perform some crazy mental gymnastics to understand where you were coming from or how you could possibly have interpreted the post the way you did.

Deleted User

I posted this in the AH mod forum, I probably should have just posted it here. Admittedly it's not very well phrased or eloquent because it was just a rant for which my keyboard is paying the price, but there you have it.

To add too - the reason for the title of the sticky was solely because of the title of the thread to which we were responding. Simple as.

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what? I agree that anti feminism doesn't mean anti women, I really do. I will never identify as a feminist, I'm not interested in modern day feminism. I'm interested in people. I hate that men are often depicted as idiots who can't mind a child, and that women are too pretty to put up a shelf. I hate that there needs to be a gender divide when logic tells us that if we work together, we can gain equality much more quickly that working against each other.

However, I do know that men and women are different. They're meant to be different, that's the whole point. They should be equal, that goes without saying, but there are differences for a reason. Science, bitches

The misogynistic stuff that I've seen in AH is not just sexist. I don't agree that "make me a sammich" is misogynistic at all, but it is sexist. Sexist jokes aren't misogynistic. Even comments about women drivers are sexist, but not misogynistic.

"Women will take you for everything you've got"
"Women are only interested in the size of your wallet"
"Irish women are all ugly they should learn from the polish"
"Women don't like nice guys"
"Women will use your child as a weapon if you break up"

They are examples of misogynism which we see regularly in AH.

I don't know what the point of this post is, I'm just ranting and frustrated.

Is there misandry on boards? Yes, I see it in the Ladies Lounge moreso, and again, it's very hard to pinpoint, very hard, but I know the posters who have a strong dislike for men.. There is sexism certainly. Outright sexism is so easy to deal with. Misogyny [and misandry] is not.

tritium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I posted this in the AH mod forum, I probably should have just posted it here. Admittedly it's not very well phrased or eloquent because it was just a rant for which my keyboard is paying the price, but there you have it.

To add too - the reason for the title of the sticky was solely because of the title of the thread to which we were responding. Simple as.

That post actually covers far better what the sticky probably should have said! Most of us could identify certain posters who appear to have an unhealthy dislike of or aggression to one or other gender. Most if us could I suspect also identify the difference between sexism and misogyny/ misandry. There's two very distinct lines there. One is well covered, and policed under the don't be a dick aspect of the charter. The other is I'd argue far more subtle. You've pointed to some of them, and theres several other (in both directions) off the top of my head. If the mods are saying that its the second line they want to effectively police then fine, but then surely it has to cover all instances regardless if what the direction of the hate may be, not just the specifics you touched on.

mrkiscool2

Again, I don't feel that many posters who aren't trolls or re-regs on here are misogynistic. I don't see the need to have a sticky about it. If you are going to have a sticky about sexism (which is what I believe most posts are on boards, sexism and not misogyny or misandry) then that's fine! As long as it's made clear that sexism goes both ways. The reason you see more sexist comments against women on boards is because there are way more men. I'm sure if you brought it down to equal amount of male and female poster you'd get equal amount of sexism.

I think it's ridiculous that on one type of sexism is acknowledged on boards while the other isn't. That's sexism in-of-itself and it's not right. I'm not disagreeing with the idea of addressing the sexism on boards (and sexism does exist and all too much in AH) however I think phrasing it only on one side is scary and I don't think I can stand by it. It'll be a similar stance to something else and I'd definitely have to consider leaving the site. I know that mightn't matter to much but it's all the power I have here to be honest.

P. Breathnach

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

... I think phrasing it only on one side is scary...

I know that some people are more easily frightened than others, but ... really?

strobe

There's been a recent influx of overt misogynisticy posts, the usual low grade sexist/misogynistic/misandrist stuff is ticking along same as ever skirting the line and flying under the radar but the 'red pill/pua/etc' based/inspired mysogynistic stuff has definitely become more frequent and overt the last little while, so makes sense to fire a high visibility shot across that particular bow.

I'm sure if there was a recent upsurge of overt rad fem misandry followed by a thread about it and a torrent of reported posts there'd be a sticky focusing on that specifically too.

Calhoun

tritium wrote: »

That post actually covers far better what the sticky probably should have said! Most of us could identify certain posters who appear to have an unhealthy dislike of or aggression to one or other gender. Most if us could I suspect also identify the difference between sexism and misogyny/ misandry. There's two very distinct lines there. One is well covered, and policed under the don't be a dick aspect of the charter. The other is I'd argue far more subtle. You've pointed to some of them, and theres several other (in both directions) off the top of my head. If the mods are saying that its the second line they want to effectively police then fine, but then surely it has to cover all instances regardless if what the direction of the hate may be, not just the specifics you touched on.

Exactly why wasnt this added to the sticky, would have cleared it up straight away.

The post above is just my opinion on the whole debacle, but I don't mod with my opinion and I'm very particular about not doing so. My opinion or my leaning on a particular subject is neither here nor there. It was also posted well after the fact when the issues people seemed to be having with the sticky became evident.

The problem that people seem to be having, is that they think the mods just decided one day that they were going to ban all sexism against just women. It's not even close to what actually happened and that has been explicitly explained a number of times but I'll give it another shot.

We received feedback from our posters that they felt there was an increase in misogynistic posting. We had previously had this feedback from other mods. We responded saying that yes, we had also noticed it and that we would do our best to try and fix it. We responded to the feedback we received. We dealt with the issue that was presented to us, that issue was misogyny. Had we received similar feedback regarding misandry, we would have dealt with that too, but we didn't.

There is absolutely no need for anyone to feel like we're ignoring their needs. We're not. We're just dealing with issues as they arise.

We'll never make anyone happy, we really won't, and it's tiresome when we put so much of our own free time into making the forum a place where people want to be. If you saw even half of the absolute horrendous abuse that AH mods get and the threats and the hate and the nastiness you'd be pretty appalled, and we do it any way, because we care about After Hours, not because we're on some power tripping binge.

Calhoun

Is this forum not also mechanism for feedback ? I don't think people disagree with the thread in the spirit you have written above but the post itself was constructed in a way where folk question if it was a two way street.

I browse the forum but not all the time so this thread and the sticky took me back abit , as I just don't .

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Sleepy wrote: »

Maybe it's simply the pedant in me but it really irritates me to see sexism against women called "misogyny". The word means "hatred of women". Or have we allowed the fringe nutjobs of the feminist movement managed to redefine the word as "sexism against a woman" or "disagreeing with a woman" at this stage?

That is the pedant in you. Misogyny and misandry started to be used more frequently when "sexism" stopped being understood as "sexism against women", or at least that's my impression (and I'm another of those posters who's all over the gender threads, here and elsewhere).

This is a debating tactic that happens in AH all the time.

Poster A: Gay marriage will lead to pedophilia
Poster B: That's homophobic
Poster A: No it's not, pick up a dictionary I'm not afraid of gay people, I just don't like the idea of gay marriage. bloody PC liberal media means you can't say anything against gay marriage without being called a homophobe.

or

Poster A: Travellers are robbing bastards who are constantly involved in dole fraud, have no interest in working, are inbred, and would machete you as soon as look at you.
Poster B: That's racist
Poster A: No it's not, because here are some studies which looked at in a certain light would support the view that travellers are not a race, so I can't be racist against them.

And the whole debate goes down a rabbit hole of semantics and nit-picking, with the result that the poster doesn't have to defend the actual content of what they've posted. Possibly a sexist thing to say, but it's an incredibly stereotypically male method of arguing. I know the definition of misogyny and misandry, but I had assumed that they were commonly understood as referring to sexism against women and men respectively.

tritium

Demetrius Alive Snowman wrote: »

And the whole debate goes down a rabbit hole of semantics and nit-picking, with the result that the poster doesn't have to defend the actual content of what they've posted. Possibly a sexist thing to say, but it's an incredibly stereotypically male method of arguing. I know the definition of misogyny and misandry, but I had assumed that they were commonly understood as referring to sexism against women and men respectively.

Strange thing but perception plays a huge part in how you interpret the debating style of AH. Before I read your last paragraph there I was thinking of several AH posters who use that tactic -mainly female and often defending feminist views or topics. Like I said, possibly perception but I think if we both added up the numbers their wouldnt be as big a gender bias there as you might think.
(Yes like electro-bitch I do tend to pop up a bit in threads of this nature)

FWIW, while misogyny seems to be being corrupted to be synonymous with sexism in some quarter s I've never seen misandry used in a freely interchangeable way with sexism

Laura Palmer

masculinist wrote: »

Well can somebody actually link me to examples of misogyny ? Look at it from my point of view that I have seen no misogyny since joining boards.

Hi masculinist. I wish people answered your question, as not doing so undermines their points. I covered what people are talking about in my first post to this thread. As I said, it's definitely not all misogyny, but it does feel a lot of the time like hostility towards a lot of women (as opposed to just hostility towards hardline feminists, which I'd agree with).

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I can't post links but I found five from this month alone, and some of them got so bad that they had to be locked: "Is feminism a dirty word?", the thread about the woman getting commented at when walking through various streets (I don't agree with that experiment and I personally don't have an issue with such comments once they're not too OTT but there is no need for such horrible things being said about women), the one about it being said that women should not be imprisoned for anything (I don't know any woman who agrees with that sentiment yet it's pretended we're all well in support of it), the one about the single mother in Limerick, the one asking when your girlfriend has ownership of your home.
...

But threads don't get started on After Hours about the awful things men do, how **** Irish men are, how any MRA = woman-hater/woman-hating and a demand for any MRAs to post to the thread to condemn the more unhinged elements of the extreme end of the MRA spectrum, an insistence that it doesn't matter if there are moderate MRA voices, MRAs being blamed for stuff that is entrenched in society which has nothing to do with MRA, "if this was a man, you can guarantee yadda yadda" about anything, threads/posts expressing resentment towards men due to having bad experiences with them; countless re-regs don't post to throw thinly veiled digs at men/MRAs, that "lock and key" analogy, etc etc.

... as well as telling women who say a guy doesn't have to be gorgeous or rich for them to fancy him, are liars. Or that women really only love guys who treat them like sh-t. Or that very irritating meme "Women hate other women" (Yeh, it's not like women have female friends or anything... ). As well as what Whoopsadaisy wrote above. And also the phenomenon of women who defend themselves from all of the above frustrating and slightly depressing vitriol = feminazis. Why on earth would a woman have to be a feminazi - or even just a feminist - to get defensive of her gender when she sees the above time and time again? Fair play to Dark Crystal in particular regarding this on AH - it even seems like she made a bit of a breakthrough! (Can't link).
The issue isn't that feminism is discussed, or the likes of Ivana Bacik saying women shouldn't be imprisoned (tripe) or disagreeing every guy who compliments a woman walking down the street is being a sleazebag... it's when these topics get used to have a go at women, any kind of feminist view at all, even extremely moderate commonsense ones that a person wouldn't even have to be a feminist to hold, and when they get used to start a gender war, and when the re-regs start swarming in... that's the issue.

tritium wrote: »

Misandry is so much of a problem that the latest thread on it in AH got closed quickly and everyone told to move it to humanities......

Misogyny thread: 61 pages Misandry thread: given last rites after 5 pages

Yeah, I can feel how much the issue is cared about

I disagree with that thread about misandry being closed. I assume it was done so because the mods were concerned that it would draw the re-regs and posters fond of posting negative things about women, but I don't think that was cause enough to close it.
However I don't think you're comparing like with like. The thread last week was about misogyny on Boards (more specifically, AH) not misogyny in general. And part of why the thread was so long was due to many people arguing against the assertion that there's misogyny on Boards/AH.
You made the point about "Is feminism a dirty word?" still being open at nearly 1,000 posts - but it's not like it's in praise of feminism; wouldn't closing it be more like the pandering you're talking about?

donfers wrote: »

It was dumb to single out misogyny

Would you consider things from the perspective of the female posters who were seeing it happen relentlessly and causing After Hours to be ruined for them? A lot of people feel this way - including men (who have wives and girlfriends, they're not just trying to get laid :pac:) - it has been raised by a lot of people; we can't all be wrong.
I mean, you could say it's hypersensitivity, but if you saw this happening a lot on AH targeted at men:

But threads don't get started on After Hours about the awful things men do, how **** Irish men are, how any MRA = woman-hater/woman-hating and a demand for any MRAs to post to the thread to condemn the more unhinged elements of the extreme end of the MRA spectrum, an insistence that it doesn't matter if there are moderate MRA voices, MRAs being blamed for stuff that is entrenched in society which has nothing to do with MRA, "if this was a man, you can guarantee yadda yadda" about anything, threads/posts expressing resentment towards men due to having bad experiences with them; countless re-regs don't post to throw thinly veiled digs at men/MRAs

... would you deem yourself hypersensitive to get bothered by it? In my opinion you wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't blame you.

With regards to misandry on Boards, I'm not going to be like people on the first thread who were effectively saying "I don't see misogyny therefore it's not happening" (pretty arrogant tbh) but I really don't see it on AH to anywhere near the same level. I see a little bit of hostility towards men/borderline misandry/misandry on TLL (I despise the terms "mansplaining" and "rape culture" and "patriarchy"), I see a bit of whataboutery on TGC, but on AH: I'm really not seeing misandrists/hardline feminists going on about how sh-t men are (I know of course it happens elsewhere on the 'net but I'm referring specifically to After Hours). Any comments ridiculing men are mostly made by men tbh - yet feminism gets blamed, which I don't understand.
Am I missing other misandry on AH?

reprise

Anyone who has been around boards a few years has seen it move with the times. Maybe its the Zeitgeist, maybe it's the mods, but I can't help feeling that it is becoming increasingly harsh and bitter and not without the whiff of group-think. I last felt it was like this about ten years ago.

The tendency of the last while to see volunteer mods complain bitterly about their lot is simply extraordinary.

AFAIK, no mod is forced on board. Boards owners are millionaires and probably can't believe their luck that this (arguably adverts - sub) site is virtually staffed on the house.

I don't entirely disagree with the sentiments of the sticky but I personally think its presence is ham fisted, wrong, unnecessary and a step in the wrong direction.

The Hill Billy

Wealthy boards owners? Disaffected mods?

Where are the Lolcats when you need them?