Reporters Without Borders says Wikileaks 'irresponsible'

[Turborama]

Source: Herald Sun

REPORTERS Without Borders has attacked WikiLeaks after the website said it "absolutely" would release remaining 15,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan.

RWB has accused the whistleblowing website of "incredible irresponsibility" in publishing classified US military documents.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says the organisation intends to go ahead with plans to release 15,000 remaining files.

In an open letter to Assange, Reporters Without Borders, an international press watchdog organisation, said the publishing of 92,000 leaked documents last month was "highly dangerous," particularly when it named Afghan informants. "It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks," it said

Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/reporters-without-borders-says-wikileaks-irresponsible/story-e6frf7lf-1225904776147

---

http://en.rsf.org/">

Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: ‘‘A bad precedent for the Internet’s future’’

Julian Assange

Founder

Wikileaks

Dear Mr. Assange,

Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article “Afghan War Diary 2004 - 2010” on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001.

Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. Last April’s publication of a video of the killing of two employees of the Reuters news agency and other civilians by US military personnel in Baghdad in July 2007 was clearly in the public interest and we supported this initiative. It was a response to the Obama administration’s U-turn on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House broke its word in May 2009, when it defied a court order and refused to release photos of the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks.

Defending yourself, you said that it was about “ending the war in Afghanistan.” You also argued that: “Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.” However, the US government has been under significant pressure for some time as regards the advisability of its military presence in Afghanistan, not just since your article’s publication. We are not convinced that your wish to “end the war in Afghanistan” will be so easily granted and meanwhile, you have unintentionally provided supposedly democratic governments with good grounds for putting the Internet under closer surveillance.

It is true that you said that “a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports” were excluded from the 25 July mass posting, that they were being “reviewed further” and that some of them would be released “once it was deemed safe to do so.”

Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal “shield law” protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals. Such imprudence endangers your own sources and, beyond that, the future of the Internet as an information medium. A total of 116 netizens are currently in prison in a dozen countries because of the comments they posted online. Can you image the same situation in the country of the First Amendment?

Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.

We look forward to your reply,

Sincerely,

Jean-François Julliard
Reporters Without Borders secretary-general

Clothilde Le Coz
Reporters Without Borders representative in Washington DC

http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html

[Luminous Animal]

1. What do you know about Reporters Without Borders?

http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

[T Wolf]

3. nice pick-up. What's in a name, right? nt

[superconnected]

4. Good info!

"When Robert Menard founded Reporters Without Borders twenty years ago, he gave his group a name which evokes another French organization respected worldwide for its humanitarian work and which maintains a strict neutrality in political conflicts ­ Doctors Without Borders. But RSF (French acronym) has been anything but nonpartisan and objective in its approach to Latin America and to Cuba in particular.

From the beginning, RSF has made Cuba its No. 1 target. Allegedly founded to advocate freedom of the press around the world and to help journalists under attack, the organization has called Cuba "the world's biggest prison for journalists." It even gives the country a lower ranking on its press freedom index than countries where journalists routinely have been killed, such as Colombia, Peru and Mexico. RSF has waged campaigns aimed at discouraging Europeans from vacationing in Cuba and the European Union from doing business there ­ its only campaigns worldwide intended to damage a country's economy.

The above is not a matter of chance because it turns out that RSF is on the payroll of the U.S. State Department and has close ties to Helms-Burton-funded Cuban exile groups."

[Turborama]

5. I know they're very open about where they get their funding from

Unlike WikiLeaks...

Annual accounts 2009
http://en.rsf.org/annual-accounts-2009-06-07-2010,37870.html

[Luminous Animal]

6. Heehee! Yes, I always believe an organization's own PR.

[Turborama]

8. How about SourceWatch, as well?

Reporters Without Borders: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reporters_Without_Borders

BTW Where does Counterpunch get its funding from?

[Luminous Animal]

10. You should read your own source.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reporters_Without_Borders#Funding_Sources

Funding Sources

Robert Menard, the Secretary General of RSF, was forced to confess that RSF's budget was primarily provided by "US organizations strictly linked with US foreign policy" (Thibodeau, La Presse).

[Turborama]

11. What do you know about Counterpunch?

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages///Politics/Counterpunch.html

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/articles/43907/Whyleftwinganti-ZionismisantisemitismByDanielGreenfield

Anyway, did you read Reporters Without Borders' letter? Anything in it you want to comment on?

I'll ask again, where does Counterpunch get its funding from? And no-one knows where WikiLeeaks get their funding from or how much it is.

[Luminous Animal]

12. I know about the criticism leveled against Counterpunch. I vehemently disagree

with some of its writers and agree with some others. What I am sure of is that "Reporters Without Borders" is a propaganda arm of U.S. government and corporate interests and that my criticism of them is supported by my link and also by yours.

Given that Wikileaks is considered by our military and our government to be an enemy and given that Reporters Without Borders is funded to promote U.S. interests, I can't give credence to Reporters Without Borders assessment.

[Turborama]

14. So, now you've shot the messenger, what exactly is in the letter you disagree with? n/t

[Luminous Animal]

23. I find their accusation of that "hundreds" of informants identies were revealed

unfounded. Not one credible news outlet has reported "hundreds" as fact. I find the demand Wikileaks define themselves as journalists, condescending. Clearly, RSF believe that information is only valuable when cleared through a "professional" filter. The ideal of whistle blower protections are not solely reserved for the news media.

And this seems more like a threat than a concern:

"A total of 116 netizens are currently in prison in a dozen countries because of the comments they posted online. Can you image the same situation in the country of the First Amendment?"

My answer to that? Yes RSF, I can imagine the country of the First Amendment imprisoning people for comments they posted online. I can imagine it because the country of the Fourth Amendment illegally spies on it's citizens and reserves the right to assassinate them. I can imagine it because the leaders of the country of the Bill of Rights are apt to instigate fear-mongering, like that expressed in your letter, in order to lead their citizens into agreeing to trample all over it.

[ProudDad]

24. How about the lie that they released ANY names...

They redacted people's names before releasing the information...!

Try again...

[Turborama]

27. Wikileaks: damage is done say human rights group

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677

[ProudDad]

33. They don't even have the correct number of articles released...

Gee, no bias there...

Created by Karzai, funded by USAID...

Try again...

[Turborama]

40. Channel 4 is Created by Karzai, funded by USAID?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

36. Server seems to be down. n/t

[Turborama]

41. It's working for me, try this...

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677

Here's another one by Ch4 I think you'll find interesting... http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/afghanistan+shootings+raise+war+crimes+question/3725277

[LanternWaste]

54. Lots of damage done by the Abu Ghraib photographs also...

Lots of damage done by the Abu Ghraib photographs also... I heard many people claim that casualties would go up due to the release, but other than some post-hoc-ergo-promper-hoc statements put out by the RW press, there was little evidence that happened.

[Turborama]

58. Apples and oranges

Did the Abu Ghraib photos have any names and addresses of Afghans who were anti-Taliban?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677

Did the Abu Ghraib photos lead to the Taliban hunting down said Afghans?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667

[LanternWaste]

60. What are the names specifically? Who are the specific victims that were hunted down?

What are the names specifically? Who are the specific victims that were hunted down?

Apples and oranges are both fruit.

I hear nothing but "this *may* happen, "this *could" happen", "this will *probably* happen" Compelling in its waffling...

[Turborama]

61. Go to the links I provided you.

"Apples and oranges are both fruit."

You used a false analogy. Do you understand what I meant by "apples and oranges" now?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. If Reporters Without Borders is a propaganda arm of the US govt..

..then why wouldn't it toe the 'We Heart Israel' line of the US govt? It's quite rightly very critical of Israel for its treatment of journalists...

[ProudDad]

26. Here's where Counterpunch got funding from ME!

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/Donations.html

[Turborama]

28. Where's the list of all the other donors?

And the donors for WikiLeaks?

[Kolesar]

46. The writing in Counterpunch is full of unsubstantiated "leaps"

...and heavy insinuation. I hated their coverage of candidates Dean and Kerry in the 2004 election.

[Turborama]

13. Nice cherry picking, btw...

NED (US$39,900 paid 14 Jan 2005)

Center for a Free Cuba (USAID and NED funded) $50,000 per year NED grant. Contract was signed by Otto Reich

European Union (1.2m Euro) -- currently contested in EU parliament

Rights & Democracy in 2004 supported Reporters Without Borders-Canada <1>

"Grants from private foundations (Open Society Foundation, Center for a Free Cuba, Fondation de France, National Endowment for Democracy) were slightly up, due to the Africa project funded by the NED and payment by Center for a Free Cuba for a reprint of the banned magazine De Cuba." <2>

Awards

RSF has received a number of awards including:

in January 2007 RSF received the Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award, a prize set by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy.<11>

In 2005, "the organisation won the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought."<12>

RSF "received two prizes in 2006 - an Emmy Award in the United States and the Antonio Asensio Prize for freedom of expression presented by the King of Spain. Both were encouragement for all those fighting for the right to be informed and to inform the public." <3>

Press Freedom Award

"The Reporters Sans Frontières-Fondation de France Prize, worth 50,000 francs, has been awarded annually since 1992 to journalists who, through their work or attitudes, have demonstrated their devotion to press freedom."

In previous years the prize has gone to:

1992, journalist Zlatko Dizdarevic, of the Sarajevo daily Oslobodenje
1993, Chinese journalist Wang Juntao, of Economic Weekly
1994, Rwandan journalist Andre Sibomana, editor of the magazine Kinyamateka
1995, Christina Anyanwu, editor of The Sunday Magazine, Nigeria
1996, Turkish journalist Isik Yurtcu, former editor of the pro-Kurdish daily Ozgür Gündem
1997, journalist Raul Rivero, founder of the Cuba Press news agency.

The Prize has been awarded in past years to:

Zlatko Dizdarevic (Bosnia-Herzegovina - 1992), Wang Juntao (China - 1993), André Sibomana (Rwanda - 1994), Christina Anyanwu (Nigeria - 1995), Isik Yurtçu (Turkey - 1996), Raúl Rivero (Cuba - 1997), Nizar Nayuf (Syria - 1998), San San Nweh (Burma - 1999), Carmen Gurruchaga (Spain - 2000), Reza Alijani (Iran - 2001), Grigory Pasko (Russia - 2002), Ali Lmrabet (Morocco - 2003), Michèle Montas (Haïti - 2003) and to the independent newspaper The Daily News (Zimbabwe - 2003).

"Several winners were released from prison just a few months or even weeks after being awarded the Prize, including Moroccan journalist Ali Lmrabet (who won it on 10 December 2003 and was freed on 7 January 2004), Russian journalist Grigory Pasko (won in December 2002, freed in January 2003) and Burmese journalist San San Nweh (won in December 1999, released in 2001)." <13>

"This year <1998>, the six other nominees for the award were:
Win Tin, editor of the daily Hanthawadi (Burma)
Ana Zarkova, a journalist with the daily Trud (Bulgaria)
Pius Njawe, editor of the triweekly Le Messager (Cameroon)
Gao Yu, a journalist with two Hong Kong publications (China)
Ging Ginanjar, founder of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Indonesia)
Jesus Blancornelas, founder of the weekly Zeta (Mexico)" <14>

"The five journalists nominated for the 11th <2002> prize were: Gao Qinrong, Bernardo Arevalo Padron, Michele Montas, Grigory Pasko, and Myroslava Gongadze. <15>

Winners of the Prize 2004

"The Prize is awarded to:

- Journalists who have shown devotion to freedom of information through their work, through taking a stand or by their attitude. " The winner in this category is Algerian journalist Hafnaoui Ghoul, provincial correspondent of the daily paper El Youm and head of the regional office of the Algerian Human Rights League (LADDH). He was imprisoned for six months for alleged libel after exposing corruption and abuses by local officials. He was conditionally released on 25 November this year.
- A media outlet that exemplifies the battle for the right to inform the public and to be informed.
"The winner here is the Mexican weekly Zeta for its investigative reporting and courageous editorial positions. Its motto is " Publish what other papers don’t ". This policy has cost three of its reporters their lives. Despite these big setbacks, the staff refuses to be intimidated and the paper’s management is maintaining its stand. The paper’s battle continues.
- A defender of press freedom.

"The winner is former Beijing University philosophy teacher Liu Xiaobo, who heads the Independent Writers' Association, the only one of its kind in China. Liu is determined that the Chinese media should become a counterweight to the all-powerful Chinese Communist Party. He is tirelessly fighting for the universal ideal of press freedom, calling for the release of imprisoned journalists and cyber-dissidents and posting articles on the Internet and in Hong Kong and diaspora newspapers. For all this he risks being re-arrested at any moment." <16>

Tolo TV, winner of a 2005 Reporters Without Borders - Fondation de France press freedom award. <17>
Zhao Yan, "contributor to the New York Times, winner of a 2005 Reporters Without Borders - Fondation de France press freedom award". <18>

"OMV supports the organisation Reporters Without Borders by financing the Press Freedom Award for Journalists in the EU Accession States The winners for 2004 were journalists from Eastern European countries that are now neighbours of the EU: Anca Paduraru from Romania, Alina Anghel from Moldavia, Andriy Sevchenko from Ukraine." <19>

The 2006 laureates are:

U Win Tin (Burma) in the "Journalist" category
Novaya Gazeta (Russia) in the "Media" category
Journaliste En Danger (Democratic Republic of Congo) in the
"Defender of press freedom" category
Guillermo Farinas Hernandez (Cuba) in the "Cyberdissident" category" <20>

Much more info and embedded links here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reporters_Without_Borders#Awards

[30rock]

15. Being open about it doesn't make it less right-wing

The major funding source "is a quasi-governmental foundation created by the Reagan Administration in 1983 to channel millions of Federal dollars into anti-Communist 'private diplomacy."

In short, this group has an anti-liberal agenda.

[Turborama]

16. Founding of NED

NED was founded during the Ronald Reagan presidency in 1982, and shaped by an initial study undertaken by the American Political Foundation. <3>

NED was created with a view to creating a broad base of political support for the organization. NED received funds from the U.S. government and distributes funds to four other organizations - one created by the Republican Party, another by the Democratic Party, one created by the business community and one by the "labor" movement (N.B.: the names of these organizations have changed over time):

International Republican Institute (IRI)

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)

Chamber of Commerce's Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE)

AFL-CIO's American Center for International Labor Solidarity

Fostering "Free Press"

In late 2004, Adam Wild Aba wrote, "The new intelligence law also directs the State Department to promote a free press and the development of 'professional journalists' in the Muslim world. It says free press is a must as part of the overall public diplomacy strategy for the Middle East, according to the State Department’s statement. Under the law, the National Endowment for Democracy shall fund a private-sector group to establish a free-media network to help participants share information concerning development of free media in 'societies in transition'."

NED also supports the nonprofit organization Internews which encourages media worldwide to "promote democracy". In 2004, Internews had a budget of $27 million, 80 percent of which came from the U.S. government.

[30rock]

17. Duh. The Democratic Party controls the executive government as speak (anti-wikileaks)

There is government written all over your beloved organization. And you expect us to be shocked that they slammed wikipedia.

[Turborama]

18. It's a letter to Wikileaks , not Wikipedia and I'd like to hear what "slamming" you disagree with

All anyone has done so far is attack the messenger, which is exactly what Assange complains about, instead of reading the actual letter and giving a critique of it.

[30rock]

20. Yes. I meant "wikileaks" as I'm sure you knew. Typo corrected

I had wikipedia on my mind, as I had used it to find out about the pro-government sources that fund the organizatin you tout.

[Turborama]

21. I'd like to hear what "slamming" you disagree with n/t

[Turborama]

19. Your exact words: "In short, this group has an anti-liberal agenda"

"The Democratic Party controls the executive government as we speak (anti-wikipedia)"

The Democratic Party has an anti-Liberal agenda? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

31. Oy. Our leadership didn't back liberalism in Honduras very well, did they?

Although I wouldn't say RSF is anti-liberal. They more often turn up in anti-democratic positions that benefit whatever oligarchy is involved.

[JI7]

7. i don't trust that website

[EFerrari]

29. I'm glad you did that because I didn't have the focus.

RSF is one of those organizations -- picked their name to be confused with legit Doctors without borders, shady funding, State Department ties. Not neutral in any way.

[pnorman]

38. I usually take Counterpunch with a grain of salt,

but this article seems to be accurate regarding RSF. Thanks for your posting.

[Turborama]

43. It is from 2005, though. The middle of the Bush era. n/t

[msongs]

2. how is this LBN? Its not even N nt

[Turborama]

9. It's on a newspaper's website that's reporting it as news, today. n/t

[Hissyspit]

22. Would carry more weight if RWB had uncovered some of the info

that WikiLeaks' has.

WikiLeaks is not a journalism organization. They have never made that claim.

[EFerrari]

34. Which raises the question, why is this group sticking their oar in?n/t

[ProudDad]

25. So because the f*cking USAmerikan Empire

and its stooges are willing to persecute reporters in retaliation for the Truth being released...

Wikileaks is to blame...

What a crock! :puke:

[Turborama]

30. How does that relate to the letter?

I can't see anything in there about them supporting this: "f*cking USAmerikan Empire and its stooges are willing to persecute reporters in retaliation for the Truth being released..."

[EFerrari]

32. Try another way. Why aren't they defending freedom of the press?

[Turborama]

39. They do...

Here: http://en.rsf.org/introduction-24-04-2009,32617.html

Also, in the penultimate paragraph they support the freedom of Bradley Manning...

Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal “shield law” protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

[EFerrari]

53. Well, they're not. Attacking Wikileaks goes counter to their announced mission

whether Wikileaks calls itself a journalistic enterprise or not.

[Turborama]

57. Instead of a broadbrush statement

Can you be more specific about what they said which means they aren't they defending freedom of the press, please? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what exactly they said that you disagreed with.

[ProudDad]

35. Look harder...

"The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals."

Blame the Truthtellers for the paroxysms of the Empire...

[EFerrari]

37. Has anyone actually been hurt?

With all this Pentagon concern, I keep expecting a bloodbath. Has it happened? I haven't seen anything.

[Turborama]

44. How about this...?

"The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals."

Blame the Truthtellers for the paroxysms of the oppressors.

[New Dawn]

42. As others have pointed out, "Reporters Without Borders" is a pro-imperialist organization.

Don't fall for their deceptive propaganda.

[Kolesar]

45. Did "Reporters Without Borders" establish a fellowship for deposing third world governments?

:sarcasm:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Truly amusing considering the non-definition of journalists

More self appointed crap from RSF, a group with a lot of baggage

[nyy1998]

48. While everyone is in the process of ripping RWB

Anyone miss their broad point? They don't like the leaks based on the release of Afghan Informants names. I might be in the very small minority that actually agree with that. If Assange were to release the documents but cross out the informants' names, I'd be far more comfortable with it.

[Turborama]

55. +100

[bemildred]

49. RWB is a conservative front. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

63. I think I may be confusing them with another bunch...

At least I hope so, coz otherwise I had no idea until now that they weren't what they were making themselves out to be...

[Turborama]

64. No link = unverified accusation.

I had no idea until now that there was so much animosity towards RWB but I think most of it might be instinctive knee jerking because of the title of the OP.

There's minimal qualitative criticism of what their letter says in this thread, just a whole round of shots at the messenger, which, ironically, is something Assange himself vociferously complains about.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Yeah, this is the first I've seen of any accusations about RWB...

I'm pretty sure I've used them as a source in the I/P forum where they've been very critical of the IDF's killing and wounding of journalists, and they didn't strike me as being some propaganda tool of the US govt or anything.

I'd hope everyone would agree that the release of any information that would make public the identities of Afghan informants (I'm fine with it if anything that could run the slightest risk of identifying them if removed) is both irresponsible and shows a total disregard for the lives that would be put at risk.

[go west young man]

50. The letter has little relevance considering this statement from Assange.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange, the data that you—the documents you have withheld, is it some 15,000? And what are you planning to do with them?

JULIAN ASSANGE: That’s correct. It’s some 15,000 that sometimes mention the names of informers in Afghanistan. And because of the security situation there, we want to look at these in a bit more detail, with a bit closer scrutiny, before we release them. But we will release them as soon as possible. In the rare incidences where there are people named who are innocent informers, we will redact those names. And once the security situation in Afghanistan improves, we will release the full text of that material.

[Turborama]

56. In the rare incidences where there are people named who are innocent informers, we will redact those

"In the rare incidences where there are people named who are innocent informers, we will redact those names"

He has also said:

"withholding posting those documents until it had time to review them to block out the names of sources contained in the documents"


Why didn't they use the same due diligence with the 1st batch? This is the main thrust of the letter, so yes it is of great relevance. thanks for providing the quote.

[fascisthunter]

51. Reporters with US Orders

lol... giant fail

[Turborama]

59. Joke about the 1st 3 words of the title & not 1 comment on the OP

Epic thread contribution fail.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joanne98]

65. Reporters without borders! LOL