SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 3:29pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Screenwriting Discussion    Screenwriting Class  ›  What turns you off? Moderators: George Willson
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 5 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    What turns you off?  (currently 8200 views)
DustinBowcot
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 4:22am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from dogglebe


In the script's thread, you claimed that Michael and Hannah had sex.  You're the only one who says this.  


That's because Hannah was attempting to kiss Michael and then there was a cut without he pushing her away. When the screen come back on them, they were each engaged in their usual bad habits, the proverbial cigarette. I didn't actually say they had sex, I said that's how you made it look with the way it was written.

See, how the truth is completely different to your preferred version?


Quoted from dogglebe

In this thread, you state that Michael is hanging out with Hannah.  She is following him around like a lovesick puppy; he's pushing her away for most of the story.


Poor choice of words. That is all.


Quoted from dogglebe
You're seeing things that aren't there... maybe because you want to.


Interesting that you'd want to go there considering what you wrote. According to Wonka's logic, you writing about a 14-year-old the way you did would mean that that is what you are into. I prefer to believe that a writer does what they think will shock in an attempt to hook readers into the plot. Often though, such devices can take one out completely.

When I analyse one's reasons for making a 1000-year-old demon a provocatively dressed, sexually suggestive, 14-year-old in a buffy-type fantasy film, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that it was done for shock value. How shocking! A 14-year-old, sexually suggestive (but really 1000-year-old demon) that isn't very threatening at all, really. The only relationship in the film is that one. That is the one viewers are forced to concentrate on. The explanation that she is really a 1000-year-old demon is something I constantly had to wrestle with throughout the script... and for me it seemed to get worse and worse as their 'relationship' grew.

The fact that she is in a 14-year-old's body is never dealt with, because it can't be as she is really a 1000-year-old demon that for some unfathomable reason dresses like a lap dancer (at work) and an innate need to fawn over a 30-year-old man. Is that what a demon would do? Really?

I admit I generally have difficulty with this whole vampire, demon fantasy-type crap. I know it has its fans, I just think it's a crap genre. Horror should be horror.

However, the whole character of Hannah could be changed, make her demure. Sure, it will change the tone of the script, but that is what's needed in my opinion (am I allowed one of those, or do I have to drop it?).

Try it. Write a draft with her being demure and see where the story goes. I personally would find the prospect of a 1000-year-old demon inside the body of a 14-year-old quite scary if she was demure and only pulled out the demon when necessary... obviously she'd get more and more demonic as the story goes on. If you don't have anything to lose by it, it could be worth a shot.

You then, of course, lose the romantic interest altogether though. So your script is still missing that important factor. Unless you believe your script doesn't need one. I think it does though.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 60 - 80
DustinBowcot
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 5:35am Report to Moderator
Guest User



Actually... it could even work if Michael was gay, but still she'd need to be older and indeed could be if Michael was gay.

*edit* Obviously what I mean by that is the comedic value their relationship will afford, taking away the need for the shock value of Hannah being 14, and I don't think it's been done before within this context. Big deal at the moment with getting gays accepted by kids so they are pre-programmed into adulthood not to hate. This type of film will always attract young teenagers and it would send out the right message. Which is a selling point, in the very least.

Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
DustinBowcot  -  December 12th, 2013, 5:48am
Logged
e-mail Reply: 61 - 80
wonkavite
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 6:29am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from DustinBowcot

According to Wonka's logic, you writing about a 14-year-old the way you did would mean that that is what you are into.


Dustin, don't put words in my mouth.  

Up until now, I've respected your opinion and your feelings on this.  I've repeatedly stated that "you have a right to your view" - which you certainly do, as does everyone here.  To which, incidentally, your reaction was consistent sarcasm (ie: oh, gee - thank you for that grandiose nod.).  Yet, you haven't afforded the slightest reciprocation - ie: acknowledging the valid arguments that have been made here on this thread.  For instance, that there's a meaningful difference between a 1,000 year old character and a true 14 year old.  (To use a minor example - I used to be a naive 14 year old girl myself.  If - someday - someone were to come along with a magic wand and restore my youthful perkiness, that wouldn't make me any less adult inside.  And that's just the issue of a few decades.  Not 1,000 years!)

Which doesn't mean that you can't still feel that this script impacts you emotionally and - from your viewpoint - is unacceptable for whatever reason.

But part of an adult, rational conversation is acknowledging legitimate points made by the "other side."  Which you seem incapable, in this instance, of affording. I hope that's a case of you just not wanting to, vs. being constitutionally incapable.  Though, I'm not quite sure which is actually worse.

My logic with the Neighbor - was and is that the detail put into the torture scene was lovingly precise - and the only conceivable purpose for it, given the story, was to focus on the violence.  I stand by that.  And if you're even slightly honest and perceptive - and actually finished that script - you'll agree with me.

That is not the case with DJB.  The reasons for the character are pretty complex.  We're discussing a character that was killed at a young age in the Crusades.  As I've stated previously - making her older takes away the tragedy and pathos of her character.  Having spent 1,000 years in Hell, the character is twisted and psychologically tortured at this stage.  Acting out in seductive ways is part of what she does.  None of this is for pure "shock" value.  If you are a perceptive writer in *any* sense, you do know that.  Unless you're too blinded by your "hot button topic" to deal.

Take these things out, and you've gutted the character and the emotional development.  As dogglebe has pointed out repeatedly, many of the things that you object to in the script are projections on your part.  Michael and Hannah don't have sex in that scene.  And Hannah pursues Michael throughout the script.  Not the other way around.  

Every "suggestion" you've come up with - Michael being gay, making Hannah older, or Michael having a love interest, are ways of dancing around an issue that makes *you* personally uncomfortable.  And all of these workarounds are cop outs which dilute the story and the characters - ie: would worsen the script and the character depth that it accomplishes. This script may have some Buffy type attributes - but the issues it concerns itself with (faith, redemption, the danger of blind hatred towards a cause in any form) are adult.  Despite your assessment, this script is not directly marketed at kids. Dumbing down and sanitizing movies is one of the worst things about the industry today.  To do that to an intelligent script is IMO criminal.

It's funny - there are alot of scripts on this site that are much "realer" and graphically deal with child issues that I would think should grate on you far worse.  Mark's Thistles, Shawn's What Doesn't Kill You (both decent scripts, BTW.)  But you're obsessed here.

Dustin - the honest, adult, rational way that you *should* have dealt with this from the beginning is to say - 'I acknowledge that all the plot points you've mentioned have validity. But emotionally, and from my personal viewpoint of what I consider socially ideal, I don't find it palatable.'

If you'd done that - as opposed to creating straw man arguments like an imaginary sex scene between Hannah and Michael - I would respect you.  After these arguments, I sadly can't say that I can.  At least on a writing or intellectual level. I hope someday that will change.  If so, I look forward to discussions with you in the future.  If not - that's a shame.

Peace and out.  

--Wonka (Janet)

Revision History (4 edits; 1 reasons shown)
DustinBowcot  -  December 12th, 2013, 9:40am
Logged
e-mail Reply: 62 - 80
DustinBowcot
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 10:35am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from wonkavite

I've repeatedly stated that "you have a right to your view" - which you certainly do, as does everyone here.


I'm so glad you pointed that out, yet again.


Quoted from wonkavite
To which, incidentally, your reaction was consistant sarcasm (ie: oh, gee - thank you for that grandiose nod.).


Do you understand the reason for the sarcasm? I'm sure if you did you would only make the mistake once. As this is the third time I feel that I should explain that I neither need your permission nor do I need my freedoms pointed out to me. I perfectly understand that I have the 'right to my view'.


Quoted from wonkavite
Yet, you haven't afforded the slightest reciprocation - ie: acknowledging the valid arguments that have been made here on this thread.  For instance, that there's a meaningful difference between a 1,000 year old character and a true 14 year old.  (To use a minor example - I used to be a naive 14 year old girl myself.  If - someday - someone were to come along with a magic wand and restore my youthful perkiness, that wouldn't make me any less adult inside.  And that's just the issue of a few decades.  Not 1,000 years!)


I have provided every reciprocation. I have taken each one of your points and countered them. If you go through the posts you will find that I have countered every one of your points while you have ignored many of mine. Let's go with your analogy this time:


Quoted from wonkavite
(To use a minor example - I used to be a naive 14 year old girl myself.  If - someday - someone were to come along with a magic wand and restore my youthful perkiness, that wouldn't make me any less adult inside.  And that's just the issue of a few decades.  Not 1,000 years!)


So, with you back looking like a 14-year-old. You start dressing like you work in a strip club, because that's... how you dress now? Also you'd immediately begin fawning over thirty-year-old men, despite knowing how weird it would look to anyone looking in. At 1000-years-old wouldn't you be a bit wiser? Do you still dress like perhaps you shouldn't? Or maybe it's a case of hey, the cellulite's gone, get the pins out! Is it that? I imagine after 1000 years one could be quite wrinkly, to find oneself in the body of a 14-year-old girl, maybe you would want to run around naked and throwing yourself at 30-year-old men.


Quoted from wonkavite
Which doesn't mean that you can't still feel that this script impacts you emotionally and - from your viewpoint - is unacceptable for whatever reason.


Thanks again for allowing me to feel what I want. I must say, you can do the same. You're allowed to feel what you want too... how about that? I know... but it is Christmas, and I'm feeling overly generous today, so I'm going to allow you, just for tonight, mind, to feel however you want too. There's also isn't any need to thank me, you've allowed me to feel how I want several times already, it's only fair that I pay you back. Obviously, it's about receiving more than giving, so you get a little less... or what's the point?


Quoted from wonkavite
But part of an adult, rational conversation is acknowledging legitimate points made by the "other side."  Which you seem incapable, in this instance, of affording. I hope that's a case of you just not wanting to, vs. being constitutionally incapable.  Though, I'm not quite sure which is actually worse.


I've already dealt with this... you've now mentioned it twice in this post alone. No wonder you imagine I don't tackle your points as you are wont to repeat them regardless. Please note, I am tackling each of your 'points' in turn... yet again.

My initial point in this thread was merely what I find a turn off, and then your following post was a post designed to tell me that I'm actually wrong to feel the way I do because of such and such a reason, even though the script doesn't have anything to do with you. I find it most strange that you would leap to the defence of a script like that despite these constant assertions of yours that I am free to feel how I want.

In regards to your quandary, I would say being constitutionally incapable is always far worse.


Quoted from wonkavite
My logic with the Neighbor - was and is that the detail put into the torture scene was lovingly precise - and the only conceivable purpose for it, given the story, was to focus on the violence.  I stand by that.  And if you're even slightly honest and perceptive - and actually finished that script - you'll agree with me.


I didn't read that script, it was too badly written and I also don't like gore for gore's sake. I don't agree with you in that because he wrote it that is what he is into. It was lovingly done, no doubt, for shock value. The writer imagining other people's emotions rather than giving rise to his/her own fantasies.


Quoted from wonkavite
That is not the case with DJB.  The reasons for the character are pretty complex.  We're discussing a character that was killed at a young age in the Crusades.  As I've stated previously - making her older takes away the tragedy and pathos of her character.  Having spent 1,000 years in Hell, the character is twisted and psychologically tortured at this stage. Acting out in seductive ways is part of what she does.  None of this is for pure "shock" value.  If you are a perceptive writer in *any* sense, you do know that.  Unless you're too blinded by your "hot button topic" to deal.


I know acting out in seductive ways is part of what she does. I also know she spent 1000 years in Hell. I know she's a demon... blah, blah, blah. Nothing to counter here, you're merely pointing out the obvious. Then your conclusion after pointing out the obvious is completely flawed. I don't agree that a 1000-year-old demon, after 1000 years in hell, would dress like a stripper in the middle of a shift and then fawn all over a 30-year-old man... if she was that way inclined in the first place, which I highly doubt, then she would just rape him and have done with it.


Quoted from wonkavite
Take these things out, and you've gutted the character and the emotional development.  As dogglebe has pointed out repeatedly, many of the things that you object to in the script are projections on your part.  Michael and Hannah don't have sex in that scene.  And Hannah pursues Michael throughout the script.  Not the other way around.


I only object to one thing... the sexualisation of a 14-year-old girl for no other purpose than just because that's what demons do, apparently.
I also, yet again need to say, that I originally stated the scene was suggested, not that it actually happened. I also said that Michael hanging around Hannah was a poor choice of words. I certainly have never once said that he was pursuing her, which is you projecting again. Within context I've already pointed out many times that he resists her advances. When it comes to children, one naturally blames the adult no matter what, because they should know better. However, as I have already admitted it was a poor choice of words in this case.


Quoted from wonkavite
Every "suggestion" you've come up with - Michael being gay, making Hannah older, or Michael having a love interest, are ways of dancing around an issue that makes *you* personally uncomfortable.


Correct. Thanks again for pointing out the obvious without making a single valid point.


Quoted from wonkavite
And all of these workarounds are cop outs which dilute the story and the characters - ie: would worsen the script and the character depth that it accomplishes.


And where are the arguments against those workarounds? Simply stating that making Michael gay, for example, would dilute his character and the story is not enough.


Quoted from wonkavite
This script may have some Buffy type attributes - but the issues it concerns itself with (faith, redemption, the danger of blind hatred towards a cause in any form) are adult.  Despite your assessment, this script is not directly marketed at kids. Dumbing down and sanitizing movies is one of the worst things about the industry today.  To do that to an intelligent script is IMO criminal.


An intelligent script? Come on. It's a Buffy fantasy. I'm not saying I write intelligent scripts either, but this is a far cry from what I would term an intelligent script.

I know it's not marketed at kids, it's marketed at young adults. Middle class white, rock fan, teenagers going through their Goth stages. Teen Horror... is a great way of looking at it. I only consider certain themes as being adult, horror, murder, rape, gore, severe torture. This script doesn't hit any of those, aside from a 14-year-old girl dancing around in next to nothing.



Quoted from wonkavite
It's funny - there are alot of scripts on this site that are much "realer" and graphically deal with child issues that I would think should grate on you far worse.  Mark's Thistles, Shawn's What Doesn't Kill You (both decent scripts, BTW.)  But you're obsessed here.


I'm simply exercising my right to believe what I want and you are countering my reasons for that belief. I have every right to answer you. The obsession is clearly yours. It's that projection thing again.

The 14-year-old in this script isn't handled right. In my opinion. It comes off as wrong. You can argue against my reasons for that until one day you hopefully make sense. I fear though that that will only come once you agree with me. So far your arguments are fallacious.


Quoted from wonkavite
Dustin - the honest, adult, rational way that you *should* have dealt with this from the beginning is to say - 'I acknowledge that all the plot points you've mentioned have validity. But emotionally, and from my personal viewpoint of what I consider socially ideal, I don't find it palatable.'


But the whole point of it is that I don't agree with the use of a 14-year-old girl without addressing how wrong the situation appears to be within the script. I don't agree that the only romantic link in the entire script should be between a demon in a 14-year-old's body and a 30-year-old single man. I have also tried to simply state my opinion and leave it at that, you then counter my opinion with fallacious argument.


Quoted from wonkavite
If you'd done that - as opposed to creating straw man arguments like an imaginary sex scene between Hannah and Michael - I would respect you.  After these arguments, I sadly can't say that I can.  At least on a writing or intellectual level. I hope someday that will change.  If so, I look forward to discussions with you in the future.  If not - that's a shame.


Again.... I have never said there was a sex scene, merely that the way the script was written it is suggested, and I gave reasons for that. My dislike of the script stems from the fact a 14-year-old girl is sexualised without anything to show how bad something like that is. That's my argument, not the one you are projecting here.

I know you may find this difficult to believe, but your respect is worth zero to me. So, you can keep it. I think I'll be able to just about live without it.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 63 - 80
Guest
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 11:38am Report to Moderator
Been Around


Posts
712
Posts Per Day
0.14
This is me trying to divert the topic somewhere else.  haha


Quoted from EWall433


Produced works I’m less forgiving about, but only because they’ve been labored over extensively. For instance, The Virgin Spring I regard as a classic. Last House on the Left (1972) I believe handled itself well enough to justify the hard to stomach material. Last House on the Left (2009), however felt like it was mainly green-lit on monetary grounds, overproduced sequences that should’ve remained grounded, and made changes to the story that substantially undermined its supposed themes.

I regard the first two films with respect. The third I was turned off by.


I have to disagree here... I think Last House on the Left's 2009 version is far superior to the original in every way.  

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 64 - 80
dogglebe
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 12:11pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from DustinBowcot
I didn't actually say they had sex, I said that's how you made it look with the way it was written.


That is exactly what you said!!!

Post 89 on The Devil's Jokebook thread:


Quoted from DustinBowcot
The protag sleeps with a 14 year old girl... and lusts after her throughout the film.




Quoted from DustinBowcott
See, how the truth is completely different to your preferred version?


Oh, I totally see that.


Phil
Logged
e-mail Reply: 65 - 80
DustinBowcot
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 12:56pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from dogglebe


That is exactly what you said!!!

Post 89 on The Devil's Jokebook thread:






Oh, I totally see that.


Phil


I then went on to explain what I meant by that post... that the scene was implied, here's another quote from Mr Ripley in regards to this, from the same thread as it appears my posts have been deleted... however your quotes pertaining to those posts haven't.


Quoted from Mr Ripley
I'll disagree.

It shows that Michael has some feelings for her to not kill her.

And after the LATER, they go back to being normal.

It's not like their in bed. She's drinking coffee while, he's organizing. Both have their clothes on. lol.

I will admit though that Phil could probably take out the Later. Most likely show that he shoves her away and go to organizing.

Gabe


And that's a guy sticking up for you.

You wrote the scene where they shared a passionate kiss, he had a crucifix in his hands that, as they kissed, he dropped. So she was kissing him, he was going to defend himself, then thought better fo it while they were sharing a passionate kiss. The symbolism is undeniable.

Then, even worse, it cut to a LATER where they were both indulging in their relative bad habit.

In any other film, if that happened one would assume that they had sex. When I naturally assumed this is what had occurred, you denied it. I then pointed out that the scene was implied and not a real life physical scene.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 66 - 80
wonkavite
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 1:05pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Based on Dustin's reaction to my post, I believe my point is made.

No reason to continue this discussion.  That would require not necessarily agreement, but at least rational give and take - which is obviously not possible for him.  
Sorry - my time (and the space on this thread) is too valuable to rehash points ad nauseum.

So....how's about them Kardashians!!!    Isn't Kim cuuuuutttteeee?
Logged
e-mail Reply: 67 - 80
DustinBowcot
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 1:28pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from wonkavite
Based on Dustin's reaction to my post, I believe my point is made.


My reaction to your post was to counter every point you made... after you accusing me of ignoring them. Exactly what you're now doing... again.


Quoted from wonkavite
No reason to continue this discussion.  That would require not necessarily agreement, but at least rational give and take - which is obviously not possible for him.


I'm not going to cooperate with you on my principles. They're mine and mine alone. You don't have any in this regard. I do. Just as I am not prepared to move on mine, neither are you on yours, which is that I haven't any logical basis to feel the way I do. Even though you fail at explaining why not.
  

Quoted from wonkavite


So....how's about them Kardashians!!!    Isn't Kim cuuuuutttteeee?


Never watched it. Never would.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 68 - 80
EWall433
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 2:30pm Report to Moderator
New



Posts
423
Posts Per Day
0.11


I do think the 2009 version is better executed in a lot of technical ways. It looks better, the performances are strong, and I even think it balances tone and tension better. My main bone of contention comes from….





SPOILERS FOR ALL 3 MOVIES TO FOLLOW






The decision to keep the daughter alive and bring her back to the house. This definitely helped amp up the tension, but I thought it did damage to the theme. In the original the parents chose to enact revenge when there were clearly other options. In the 2009 version their options are limited. They are out in the middle of nowhere and still have a daughter to protect, so their actions come a lot closer to self-defense.

Now in the end they definitely do things they didn’t need to, but what’s the cost? At the end of Virgin Springs the father begs God’s forgiveness for what he’s done while cradling his daughter. In 1972 the father also breaks down as the police prepare to arrest him. In 2009 they just get in a boat and leave. There doesn’t seem to be any additional penalty for choosing revenge (not only is the daughter still alive, but even one of the criminals comes around).

I’m not saying theme should always trump pacing and tension, but (on a personal level) if I’m going to be asked to endure a graphic rape scene, I’m going to want something in exchange. Preferably something I could not get otherwise. It felt like all the 2009 version was offering in exchange was a well-executed thriller, and I could find that in less demanding movies.

I guess I was just dissatisfied with that exchange. Although I pass no judgment on those who weren’t.  


Quoted from wonkavite
So....how's about them Kardashians!!!    Isn't Kim cuuuuutttteeee?


Meh, I think Kourtney's cuter... Er... I mean....whose that? An obscure character from Siddhartha?
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 69 - 80
Heretic
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 2:48pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28
^^ Agreed. The new film was morally irresponsible in that it attempted to make the vengeance more palatable by adding a suspense/defense element to the third act, and also that it, as you note, therefore employed a horrific sequence of torture and rape as what turned out to be, basically, arbitrary "entertainment," the setup for a fun, suspenseful showdown at the end.

Also, for me the slicker production made the film less effective, but ah well. The best part of the '09 version was that trailer, with the Taken By Trees cover of Sweet Child of Mine…great choice there.

That's basically the only thing I find offputting in a script: moral irresponsibility, which I guess has been discussed already. Writers play a major part in shaping cultural perspective, and they need to treat that power responsibly. If I get the sense that a writer is directly or indirectly pushing an irresponsible viewpoint, or that their adherence to a dangerous value/set of values is uncritical, that might be enough to convince me to stop reading.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 70 - 80
Guest
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 3:24pm Report to Moderator
Been Around


Posts
712
Posts Per Day
0.14
Has anyone seen the Unrated Cut of the 2009 remake?  I've been trying to find it on BD.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 71 - 80
wonkavite
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 5:22pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Hey - would you guys recommend Last House on the Left at all, for someone not into torture porn movies per se?  I'm not adverse to gore... but it's got to have something more to recommend it to be my cup of tea (ie: suspenseful, quasi fresh concept, good characters, etc...)  
Logged
e-mail Reply: 72 - 80
James McClung
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 5:56pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
No.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 73 - 80
wonkavite
Posted: December 12th, 2013, 7:10pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Heh.  That's succinct!  
Logged
e-mail Reply: 74 - 80
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Screenwriting Class  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006