9spaceking (OG)Internet anonymity is good. Secret agents need anonymity, they cannot just outright post their profiles to be easily seen by others. In addition, online profiles need anonymity too, so that trackers don't track and stall them, managing to find out about their homes and where there lives. Without anonymity, the pedophiles' jobs would be very easily and manage to get the people's information within only a few moments. In fact research has found that cyber-stalking is in fact a threat, especially to the victim. [1] Therefore, anonymity is definitely needed to prevent this crime from happening.
My opponent will probably try to say that anonymity helps the pedophiles too. However, even without anonymity, they can still post false information and act like different people from whom they really are. So this is why allowing internet anonymity is better than no anonymity:
Without anonymity: People get stalked, easily found by pedophiles
With anonymity: People are very hard to stalk and become targets by pedophiles
In conclusion it would be immoral for the government to let this kind of crime happen. It needs to allow internet anonymity.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/cyber-stalking-prank-jack-vale_n_5069831.html
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-10 06:43:08
| Speak Round
admin (OO)Welcome one and all to this debate, which my side of the house is very excited about.
If somebody were to go down the street wearing a balaclava, heavy gloves, a mask and plain black clothing, you'd probably assume you were looking at a burglar. It may or may not be true - there are all manner of reasons why somebody might not want to be seen walking down your street. Some of them may even be legitimate. But the unusual nature of the situation warrants some suspicion.
The internet is just like that. Most of us browse the internet like we walk down a street. We don't ordinarily cover our faces. Some degree of privacy is to be expected - for example, many web browsers send a "Do Not Track" header that prevents advertisers from showing advertisements targeted to you (pretty much). But anonymity is not technically a way to ensure privacy (you could still track the same anonymous user across websites) nor does privacy need to mean anonymity.
This debate is not about privacy. It's about the 16-year-old kid who opens a proxy to bypass his school's firewall to watch porn. It's about the hackers who steal personal photos from a celebrity's account on a cloud hosting website. It's about the people who make fake accounts on debate website time after time, to send out a few love spam messages. Yes, it is about the secret agents, working in secret right now to plan terrorist attacks against the western world.
And yes - it's about pedophiles.
Because unlike the prime minister's assertion, the victims of these crimes will not be anonymous. Some random 8-year-old girl who just got her first computer is not going to be installing Tor and opening a secure shell. She's going to be hitting the chat rooms and making a Facebook page to tell all the world exactly who she is. And even if her internet access were to somehow be anonymized, her actions will still be visible to all. Even if nobody knows what her connection is, when she puts up that awesome photo she just took of her neighborhood on her fancy new Instagram, people will know exactly where to find her.
The reason that little girls will always act that way is the same reason most ordinary people act that way - they want to be connected. The whole point of the internet is that it makes communication better. Facebook, for example, is basically a huge town hall that you can go to and meet people at whenever you like. Were it not for the internet, then in all likelihood, I would never have met you, and you would never have met me. But were it not for non-anonymity, I wouldn't know that you're you, and you wouldn't know that I'm me. That totally defeats the purpose of communication.
But criminals are exactly the kinds of manipulators that want to create a false identity - to deceive. They want to hide the fact that they're criminals and not get caught. This is because being caught will lead to serious consequences for those criminals. Because we - the rest of society - want to protect our most vulnerable, we want to both prevent criminals from believing they can get away with being anonymous online, and when the crimes do occur, to track those criminals and bring them to justice.
Internet anonymity is completely unnecessary in the sense that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. But beyond that, it's what actually allows cybercriminals to get away with their crimes. If it were not for security researchers finding flaws in the software criminals use to hide their tracks, most cybercriminals would never be caught.
Internet Anonymity cannot actually be totally prevented. It's part of the internet by design. That does not mean, however, that we should support it. I enjoy tomato sauce, for example, but that doesn't mean I enjoy squeezing the last little rests out of the packet because I don't want to see it go to waste. It seems like every time they design a new nozzle for tomato sauce they always find a way to make it slightly harder to squeeze out.
On side opposition we're aspirational about the internet. We dream of an internet where people can communicate without fear, and where privacy is respected. But anonymity is hardly the solution to this problem. This dream we have can only be realized when there is complete honesty. Hence the very important work, supported by side negative, of security researchers across the globe, both helping catch the bad guys and keeping the good guys secure when they do stuff like buying a new stovetop online.
A follow-on reason for this is that not all crimes actually have a victim directly, but are still crimes for very good reason. If you want to pass money on to a terrorist group in secret, for example, that's possible via the internet. Lugging a briefcase stacked with $100 bills personally to the terrorists' headquarters is far more difficult in this day and age. We need to stop these kinds of criminals as well. The young man I mentioned earlier who broke school rules to watch porn is another example - we want our young people learning, and that's what school internet should be for.
As the leader of the opposition I therefore call upon this house to oppose the motion, and look forward to both an exciting debate, and an internet we can believe in.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-11 17:48:48
| Speak Roundadmin: Just a quick note: only government sides should answer opposition questions, and only opposition should answer government questionsadmin: Do you agree with my team's assessment that there is a difference between being private and being anonymous?9spaceking: There is indeed a difference between private and anonymous, but the two are still relatedadmin: What is the relationship?
Csareo!!!!: Hello! Are closing debaters allowed to post in cross examination, or is that unformal?admin: Uh - sure, why not. Closing sides do POIs in BP so I'd say it's fine.Csareo!!!!: I think this is an intresting subject, and happy to debate it. Two questions. Do I win with 9space? You claim criminals get away with theft on the internet, but wouldn't you think transparent details on the web would make crime easier?admin: 1) no, at the end voters will choose just one of us 4 as the winner; 2) Non-private details of honest folk are generally already transparent - a more transparent web would only make it obvious who the real criminals areCsareo!!!!: Yokay. How would internet anonymity be enforced?admin: That would presumably be a question for your side of the house. We agree that side government has failed to provide a good model in this debate.Csareo!!!!: My bad. How would the banning of internet anonymity be enforced? What's keeping people from lying about their details?admin: I'm not running a counter-model, nor is it my onus to do so. I am simply opposing internet anonymity in the same way I oppose poor tomato sauce nozzle design - I live with it but I don't support it either. Likewise this house shouldn't support internet anonymity.Csareo!!!!: We are arguing whether it should be supported or not........ in a parliamentary debate?admin: I'm arguing that the government's statements in favor of anonymity should not be supported. Simple as that. If the government presents a more concrete plan then I can give a more concrete response.Csareo!!!!: Okay, but do you concede that the system only works if everyone agrees to anonymity? Let's say, a business man decides to be transparent, and post his finances, but a hacker chooses to lie. In that case, the business man get's screwed, correct?admin: 1) no, anonymity on the internet is terrible, so complete anonymity is completely terrible; 2) that's pretty much the scenario I described in my constructive happens under the status quo. I stand by it 100%.Csareo!!!!: Any questions for me?Csareo!!!!: I have what I need for my CG roundadmin: Awesome. Do you agree that the main reason why the internet is generally used is because it's an awesome communication tool, and further, that the vast majority of meaningful communications are not anonymous?Csareo!!!!: I don't know what the internet is generally used for, but I agree that it is commonly used for communication. I disagree that the vast majority of communications are "not anonymous", as most people on the internet aren't transparent about their identity.admin: Putting aside the internet entirely though, just for a moment, would you agree that in human life in general, the vast majority of meaningful communications are not anonymous?Csareo!!!!: In life without the internet, I agree. admin: So why shouldn't we be aspirational about an internet where we can have the same sorts of meaningful communications we have in life, where we aren't restrained because we all are forced to look and act the same because of the anxiety caused by a very few?9spaceking: the problem is that while things are much more obvious in reality, and these same things are hidden much more well over the internet, we must fear the strangers even if there are merely fewadmin: Does it make any difference to you who is asking this question?9spaceking: I suppose not.admin: Would it matter to you who I was if my questions were to start revealing information about you that you don't want revealed, at least to the extent that I am caught for my crimes and justice is served as a result?9spaceking: Well of course.admin: Do you agree that in general, society should catch criminals based on evidence of who the criminals are, as opposed to judging the innocent, and if so, for cybercrime specifically, what sort of evidence do you think would be valid evidence of a criminal's identity?9spaceking: Yes; IP address trackingadmin: Isn't the whole point of internet anonymity to prevent the use of tools like IP tracking, or are you confusing anonymity with privacy again?9spaceking: oh....wait.....hold on....9spaceking: Okay, so here's my points9spaceking: with internet anonymity, trackers have to try much much harder to locate the person they want to stalk9spaceking: and who knows? They might end up stalking a cyber-stalker.9spaceking: However, without internet anonymity, things are more easily exposed, and cyber-stalkers have an easier job of identifying stalkers versus non-stalkers9spaceking: it's a game of mafia, really, but most cyber-stalkers are definitely not going to post pictures online, and even if they are, they will probably post fake pictures or photoshopped pictures9spaceking: So there's a notable difference between stalker and non-stalker, and even if non-stalkers might also not post a lot, the stalkers will notice a difference, since usually the stalkers try to be more private than the non-stalkers9spaceking: and the uber-private non-stalkers won't become targets anyways, so they won't have a problem. However, the people who even just post sometimes may accidentally reveal too much informationadmin: Can you explain how any of that answers my question? Or were you making an argument in CX instead of your round, which is where your arguments are generally supposed to go?9spaceking: It answers your question because it clarifies what I think of the difference between stalkers and non-stalkersadmin: What did my question have to do with stalking? Did I not ask about whether the whole point of internet anonymity to prevent the use of tools like IP tracking, or whether you are confusing anonymity with privacy again?Return To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking (OG)I found an extraordinarily good two-sided article, and I thought I could bring it in here, since the more sides an article brings, the more "unbiased" it seems to me.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/betsy-isaacson/proposition-35-and-why-anonymity-is-good-for-you_b_2130489.html
The article starts talking about proposition 35, which in its core really does matter with this debate, but what really matters in the proposition is the part where they take away your anonymity rights. Of course, it is obviously good to take away these villains' rights, since they violated them, but the article notes that these people could easily change their screen name, change computers, etc, and get away. The author, if she was trying to convince us to not allow proposition 35, would have of course misunderstood and made a massive straw-man fallacy. However, this was not the case. The proposition was merely a "Grabber" to add a tiny point about anonymity before moving on to her points about why we have guaranteed rights to the internet (with the exception of, of course, those criminals)
-The person there makes a very good spot-on point about how you can fully express yourself on the internet, be anyone you want, without anyone really knowing. This shows something good about the internet, and this needs no backup, as logic can easily prove this true.
-People can help you without being too protruding or seemingly stalker-ish. Due to anonymity, it would be nearly impossible to track somebody, so you can ask for people's help without worrying, as the example from "Jenna".
-Anonymous people can't be stopped from displaying their freedom of speech. This has limitations, and although the author does not necessarily note about moderators on websites, this is mostly true. It would be much tougher to walk up to the White House and exclaim about how Obama's health care is awry in comparison to just posting on his facebook page about the same exact subject.
And as I mentioned in round one, people are much harder to track with anonymity. Logic.
As you can see there are many benefits to the anonymity on the internet, supported by pure logic.
Onto you, Larz.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-14 22:30:46
| Speak Roundadmin (OO)I thank the deputy prime minister for building their case.
It's not enough to post a link and parade how "logical" it is. OG actually needs to provide some analysis as to WHY their claims are accurate. If they fail to do this, then I hope their closing team will fill these critical gaps in, because we on side negative fail to see the logic.
I'm going to begin by making this distinction crystal clear:
Privacy is the right for people not to know what you're doing online
Anonymity (on the internet) is the right for people not to know who you are in real life
The distinction is important on the internet. A fake Justin Bieber social media profile is anonymous but not generally private, while your browsing history on Amazon is generally private but not anonymous. Not only can a computer's IP address actually be traced, but in CX the OG admitted that it forms sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. Therefore any internet that includes IP addresses is not anonymous. It may be private, but it is not anonymous. The whole point of anonymisation software is to hide the IP address (this is called "masking") and other signals that can identify the origin of a request.
OG also argued in the CX that stalkers can hardly go after anonymous targets. They totally can. It's like stalking that guy who goes down the street wearing a balaclava, heavy gloves, a mask and plain black clothing. Although you don't really know what's under all that clothing you can still watch them as they go around the internet. And if they upload photos to the cloud or something like that, stalkers can use them. The big problem with OG's case is that it fails to make this distinction. A stalker might be non-anonymous but keep their activities super-private so you don't find out.
The only remaining point OG has made in this debate is that you can better self-actualize your legitimate opinions and such when those are not linked to your real-world identity, because people are less afraid to say stuff when there are no real-world consequences. And this is true, because there are no real-world consequences to anything you do anonymously online, including cybercrime of the worst sort. Both sides of this house are opposed to that. But there are problems with this - how can you tell whether an idea is popular when you can only see one person at a time, and everyone looks the same? And if the idea is popular, then what does that bring unless somebody non-anonymously stands up in the real world and actually makes the change (defeating the purpose)? And what if that exercise of free speech conveys privileged or private information.
Freedom of speech is a right we definitely support. You shouldn't be arrested for speaking your mind, provided that in so doing you are not harming others. Forcing you to identify yourself online (if that were possible) would not prevent you from having access to that freedom. Further we agree with various human rights charters that all humans have the right to a name and an identity. When JK Rowling wrote under a pseudonym that didn't hurt her sales at all.
The fact is that there will be both criminals and vulnerable people on the internet. In the last round there is tons of evidence to this effect, and it has gone completely unrebutted so far in the debate. Assertions to the contrary have done nothing to defeat the logic of my argument that little 8-year-old girls do not know how to use Tor effectively even IF there was a government mandate. At best it would be exactly as effective and efficient as blocks on Facebook in China. OG also had no response to my second, more minor argument, that not all crimes have direct victims (as their case assumes).
The internet is real. It is a part of real life just like any other form of communication (writing, for instance) is a part of real life. There is no "digital world" (sorry Digimon fans). So why shouldn't we be aspirational about an internet where we can have the same sorts of meaningful communications we have in life, where we aren't restrained because we all are forced to look and act the same because of the anxiety caused by a very few? It's exactly the same as walking down the street wearing anonymising clothing: we shouldn't have to do it. There should be no need, and the way to do that is for everybody to not be anonymous. Then the criminals (who are anonymous) can be blocked out. Hence why sites like edeb8 don't allow you to post fake details about yourself (and ask for confirmation if you claim to be a famous celebrity). This de-anonymisation of the internet helps keep them secure, because if somebody does wrong they can be easily tracked. If IP masking became a significant issue on edeb8, for another example, I'd crack down on that too, as I'm sure any responsible webmaster would.
OG wants to make the internet a wild-west style Russian Roulette (even he called it "mafia") where you hope cyber stalkers will attack each other, and never mind the consequences if they attack an innocent victim. A much better internet would be one where everyone can see who everyone else is. Details of who does what on the internet do not need to be made public. We can still protect privacy. But it should also be available so that legitimate law enforcement can effectively do their job.
Now that's an internet we can believe in. Logic.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-17 19:58:09
| Speak Roundadmin: Does the affirmative side of the house plan to rebut any of my awesome arguments?9spaceking: Dang, privacy is real similar to anonymity, ain't it?9spaceking: How much I hate that tiny difference....9spaceking: I have to ask though, does "When JK Rowling wrote under a pseudonym that didn't hurt her sales at all." NOT rebut your arguments?9spaceking: After all, you showed how anonymity couldn't harm. :39spaceking: Therefore you defeated, partially, your own points about how anonymity CAN harm because you listed an example where an "Anonymous" person wasn't harmed.admin: On side negative we say privacy isn't really that similar to anonymityadmin: JK Rowling didn't NEED a pseudonym to speak her mind effectively. Anonymisation did not improve her free speech. Naturally her intentions were ok, but this cannot be a generalisable assumption for other reasons made in my case.9spaceking: JK Rowling, if correct about her predictions, would have gained much benefits due to her pseudonym.admin: JK Rowling was wrong about her predictions though. Wouldn't you agree that "Robert Galbraith" achieved the same sort of fame as she did?9spaceking: But we don't know what would have happened if she didn't remain anonymous.admin: But is it not true that her sales as Robert Galbraith were super high before it was revealed "he" was really JK Rowling?Return To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking (OG)"It's like stalking that guy who goes down the street wearing a balaclava, heavy gloves, a mask and plain black clothing."
Exactly. It's much harder to tell who he is, and the stalker could be intimidated by such a figure. Who knows, he might be a nice guy in reality, but when wearing his amazing disguise he looks like the gangster, the mysterious ninja/thief you don't want to mess with. Stalkers will have a much harder time following somebody whom they don't know much about, unlike some person who says they liked cute cats online and gave their name and their picture, so that the stalker can easily pretend they're somebody who knows that non-anonymous person by stating their name and how they like cute cats too.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-21 05:59:22
| Speak Roundadmin (OO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-24 06:00:03
| Speak Round9spaceking: burpadmin: Well, it appears I have lost this debate. Autoforfeit and all. Sorry.Csareo!!!!: So only you're eliminated? admin: Yip, because only I forfeited9spaceking: So now what? I compete....your "team mate"?9spaceking: So wait...if Canoush forfeits, then...I'm just competing Csaereo for arguments?? But we're on the same side....XDadmin: no you're not on the same side. It's not a pro/con dichotomy in 4-way debating.Csareo!!!!: 9space, we are both affirming the same resolution, but competing to make better arguments. Usually parliamentary debate is performed in teams, which is why the confusion may of sprung upCsareo!!!!: It is pretty much who can advocate for the resolution better. You have a great advantage given I will likely face a forfeiting opponent, who wont make any arguments (I presume). Although this isn't a formal setting to discuss these thingsReturn To Top | Speak Round
Blackflag (CG)Introduction + Opening Statements
I thank the opening affirmation and closing opposition for opening the debate. My house will argue that internet anonymity is a jaded, but necessary institution. The OC makes the claim that open interaction on the internet will reduce crime. In fact, that is the blunt of his house's entire case. What was left lacking, is how this happens? How will encouraging citizens to be transparent on the internet reduce crime?
I wasn't actually convinced there was evidence to this heavy assertion. I would go as far as to state there is evidence contradicting the OC's minuscule case. The statement that thing's will simply be better by talking up to the good folks is terrible misguided. The problem being the government can't actually enforce regulation of transparency, as that would be a blatant affront to modern day civil liberties. So why can we feel comfortable telling citizens to go open with their feelings, put it all on the table?
The good patriot will surely respect his politicians and reveal his financial secrets and private information, but you better be sure the common thug has no problem disrespecting the recommendations of parliament. There is a reversatory BOP on the Opposition, considering they made a rugged claim that "Internet Anonymity" will sometimes fall on listening ears.
Is internet anonymity a good thing? I agree that there is more evidence to the contrary, but it certainly isn't a bad thing. Internet Anonymity is a necessary evil. If there was enough evidence to support the open encouragement of internet transparency, I would feel confident in telling those we're representing to put it all on the line, but that evident is non existent, therefore the Parliament has a moral responsibility to uphold the principle of internet anonymity until more research and studies can come to light on the matter.
I thank the Legislature for their time, and leave the floor to the Closing Opposition,
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-29 13:11:50
| Speak Round
kanoush (CO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-02 13:12:01
| Speak RoundCsareo!!!!: Kanoush, do you plan on continuing the debate?Return To Top | Speak Round
Blackflag (CG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-08 13:12:01
| Speak Roundkanoush (CO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak RoundReturn To Top | Speak Round
kanoush (CG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak Roundkanoush (CO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak RoundReturn To Top | Speak Round
kanoush (CO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak Roundkanoush (CG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak RoundReturn To Top | Speak Round
kanoush (OO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak Roundkanoush (OG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak RoundReturn To Top | Speak Round
kanoush ()Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:12:01
| Speak Round
Judge: whiteflame
Judge: Pinkie
ya! I'm winning! YAY!Posted 2014-10-12 03:43:55
that's kind of sad....FF FF FF FFPosted 2014-10-12 00:17:23
I have no idea how I'm going to score this one... I'll mull it over in the next little bit.
All in all, I'm liking this parlimentry stylez though! Hope we have another one soon!Posted 2014-10-11 16:35:58
Looks like there was a bug with the listing of names. Although listing every remaining round as forfeited was the correct behavior it incorrectly attributed all those forfeits to kanoush. Will investigate that.Posted 2014-10-11 15:14:34
Nothing to stop you rebutting me, of course
You had the advantage of having a dissenting opponent.Posted 2014-10-07 08:15:31
*bothPosted 2014-10-07 07:37:49
lol, but OO and CO ff'd. Now it's only down to me and Csareo.Posted 2014-10-07 07:37:32
Tor is too damn slow, I only bother using it to sneak past airmax.Posted 2014-09-27 14:27:58
Yeah, I'm out of this debate. Sorry guys. I'm a little stressed/overworked right now.Posted 2014-09-24 19:29:56
ooo, a forfeit from Admin !
#thingsyoudontseeeverydayPosted 2014-09-24 18:48:34
Just not the side I work best in. Again, different debaters will prefer different sides, but it clearly isn't an "opening half trumps everything" approach. The big challenge of the opening sides is to REMAIN RELEVANT despite the extensions introduced by the closing half.Posted 2014-09-18 18:18:07
OG is hardest? Dang, why did I have to choose the hardest side?Posted 2014-09-18 07:21:52
Clarification though: their "new argument" can just be a great new piece of analysis or something like that. Some adjudicators will give closing teams wins despite poor role fulfillment.Posted 2014-09-17 16:34:17
First of all, you don't have a team mate, and closing has to run a different argument from you. If kanoush runs the same argument as me he loses, so he needs to come up with a new, original argument and make that the focus of the debate.
Second, this debate has reply speeches. Check the order I posted below.
Personally, I think OG is hardest, followed by CO, then OO, and CG is easiest. Different BP debaters prefer different sides.Posted 2014-09-17 16:00:44
wait, if I don't win with my "team mate"....then....is the mission just to be the most informative and persuasive out of all of us? But then, wouldn't it be unfair for the guy who replies after the first guy? After all, Admin has chances for extra rebuttal AND building of his cases, while Kanoush's repeating of the same arguments won't seem as strong.Posted 2014-09-17 09:59:06
This is why people need to think carefully before enabling CX and replies in 4-ways.Posted 2014-09-12 15:20:41
holy crabs indeed, while I'm spending negative 10 percent effort on this I'm spending 110% on the BSH1 Santa Claus debate, which is why I'm sure we will lose.Posted 2014-09-12 13:09:25
"If I'm not mistaken the structure of the debate will be: OG/OO/CX/OG/OO/CX/OG/OO/CX/CG/CO/CX/CG/CO/CX/CG/CO/CO/CG/OO/OG[
Holy crap!Posted 2014-09-12 13:06:16
dammit....then we will lose.Posted 2014-09-10 06:35:49
We're not on the same side. You're opening government, and I'm opening opposition. Csareo is closing government and kanoush is closing opposition. You and Csareo are both "pro" but Csareo needs to come up with an argument that isn't the same as yours (but while also not "knifing" you, which means contradicting your case, because that would weaken the pro side overall). Likewise kanoush can't just copy my argument either, or knife me.
If I'm not mistaken the structure of the debate will be: OG/OO/CX/OG/OO/CX/OG/OO/CX/CG/CO/CX/CG/CO/CX/CG/CO/CO/CG/OO/OGPosted 2014-09-09 22:23:22
wait....so....are we pro or con, admin?
PS. I'm glad to have such a powerful debater on my sidePosted 2014-09-09 22:17:19
Also, this is probably one of the first, if not the first, real 4-way debate, so please tell me if there are any bugs/problems.Posted 2014-09-09 16:54:48
Just a quick comment about 4 ways in general: I hope the closing teams know about extensions.Posted 2014-09-09 16:32:38