| Queen Archivist 25.04.2016 09:56 |
In a current thread here on QZ, a person calling himself pittrek, wrote the following (Posted: 25 Apr 16, 01:37)... I have nothing personally against Greg, I never met him personally, he probably doesn't even know we dealt together because I always used a third person. I find this rather galling and just a bit pathetic. I have said it before and I'll say it again, for the final time. Why is it that you guys know precisely who I am, what I do, where I am, where I can be contacted, but I cannot enjoy the same basic courtesy in return? Why is this inequality and imbalance tolerated? I do not hide behind bogus names, I do not use a 'third person' as pittrek (not his real name) puts it. I'm Greg Brooks (real name) and you guys all know it. Pittrek says "he probably doesn't even know we dealt together". Wow! How bloody rude. I guess he and I have emailed or talked on the phone or in person, and he's never thought to tell me that he (or she) is pittrek from QZ. Why? Does this not strike you guys as rude too, or slightly cowardly? It does me. We are discussing sensitive issues sometimes here; making personal comments, firing insults in my direction, sharing opinions and private observations, mostly about me or my job. But certain people are faceless, you might say spineless, because they can say anything to me and hide behind their silly alias. I simply think that if you have something to say, be it constructive, destructive, good, bad or ugly, mean, nasty or flattering, truthful or dishonest, insulting or complimentary, then just say it openly and honestly. Have the courage of your conviction. Do not hide behind your alias fake identity when insulting people on QZ, any more than you would hide behind your wife if you were doing so in person, on the street. That surely is a basic simply human courtesy. That surely is simple good manners and being seen openly and clearly - not blurred and obscured. I'm not hiding. John Stuart never did. A chap called Mark Snow here right now isn't either. But the pittreks, Anagramers, Kuijpy, BrEnskis, etc etc etc etc, are hiding, and that apparently is fine. If you have something to say, say it out loud and stand by it. Don't hide away like a school bully. Let's have equal status for ALL here, not just for some. Thanks PS. When I joined as a member here several years ago, I tried to set up GREG BROOKS, but was told that name had been taken already!!!! As had QUEEN'S ARCHIVIST…. Go figure!!! |
| pittrek 25.04.2016 10:30 |
I am a 35 years old man, first name Peter, last name not important for the conversation. As a person using the internet since the mid 90's I have a set of "internal rules", one of them is never to reveal anybody's real identity unless (s)he is OK with it. I don't remember ever insulting you intentionally, if I did it unintentionally, or if you felt insulted by any of my comments which were not meant as an insult, I am sorry. |
| musicland munich 25.04.2016 11:11 |
The lack of a proper moderation, with the exception of removing Spam makes it hard to force those kind of things. Some people don't want to use their name because of legal issues ( Uploaders for example) Even sharing a 40 year old article on QZ is a legal grey area in my country. |
| brENsKi 25.04.2016 12:52 |
@GB do you even know how the internet works? people use their nicknames - because it saves having to type their full name into everything every time they log in. not convinced? what do you type into your online banking GB? i'll bet you don't type Greg Brooks - you type a number. get real. the internet shortens everything - and why shouldn't it. you worried about not knowing the full name of the person you're currently hurling insults at? PM them then. - just because you have some grandiose -self-importance of ensuring everyone knows you are GREG BROOKS - QUEEN ARCHIVIST doesn't mean we ALL want all our details public domain for any lunatic to seek us out. and all of your "mortal offence" coming from the guy whose login ID is Queen Archivist - hahahaha fucking ha do you not see how stupid your comments look? |
| Marknow 25.04.2016 13:25 |
Greg, don't get too hung up on the names people use here as opposed to their real names, it's something that is done on many forums for privacy reasons. Not so people are unaccountable for what they say but just so every Tom, Dick & Harry cannot bang your name into Google and read all the posts you have made online on the many forums you may belong to. We all kinda know who we are behind the alts here, especially those of us who correspond with each other. All of us here are very contactable and from personal experience anybody who I email will supply me with their full name and address if needed, I usually do the same. I don't know why somebody would choose to deal with you through a third party like Peter has but I am sure he had a logical reason, whatever people may think about you it is quite clear you are open to contact from anybody. My advice, treat QZ like your local pub, you don't go into your local and start chatting to everybody, there might be neighbors you had an argument with over a tree on your boundary, so it's best to avoid them as they will be confrontational, there are the surly alcoholics who are boring and brainless conversationalists and best avoided, there is the gang of hooded neanderthals sitting in the back who nobody approaches and the weirdos in the toilets doing drugs, there are people who you cannot get away from if you make eye contact and they will bore you to death with the minutia of their lives. Of course there are also the people you love meeting for a chat and some banter. Oh yeah, there are no bouncers on the door either to keep things calm if the Muppet's get vocal. That is QZ in a nut shell. |
| AlbaNo1 25.04.2016 14:39 |
To play devils advocate in support of GBs point, there is a national newspaper site I am on that insists full names to be divulged if wishing to be registered contribute to forum's . I guess the idea is that people will be more responsible and less likely to make inflamnatory or abusive statements if their identity is on clear display and people cant hide behind it. However....most chat sites or fourms of music sites its obviously nicknames that are used. |
| dave76 25.04.2016 15:08 |
Hey Greg. You should answer people when they send you pictures which you'd requested. I've sent you some regarding the Queen radio project and didn't get any feedback. A reply would be nice don't you think. |
| fr1986 25.04.2016 20:29 |
dave76 wrote: Hey Greg. You should answer people when they send you pictures which you'd requested. I've sent you some regarding the Queen radio project and didn't get any feedback. A reply would be nice don't you think.Or answer fans that merely ask about upcoming Queen Proyects but it seems he just likes to mess around with people from QZ |
| scottmax 26.04.2016 05:49 |
Mr Brooks has done his usual thing of spitting his dummy, creating a few threads, disappearing, and not to be seen for another year or so, so don't expect any kind of replies.... Ive no idea how he got the privileged job he has, his people skills obviously weren't in the job description. He expects a lot from this community, but gives so little back |
| Queen Archivist 26.04.2016 07:26 |
brENsKi wrote: @GB do you even know how the internet works? people use their nicknames - because it saves having to type their full name into everything every time they log in. not convinced? what do you type into your online banking GB? i'll bet you don't type Greg Brooks - you type a number. get real. the internet shortens everything - and why shouldn't it. you worried about not knowing the full name of the person you're currently hurling insults at? PM them then. - just because you have some grandiose -self-importance of ensuring everyone knows you are GREG BROOKS - QUEEN ARCHIVIST doesn't mean we ALL want all our details public domain for any lunatic to seek us out. and all of your "mortal offence" coming from the guy whose login ID is Queen Archivist - hahahaha fucking ha do you not see how stupid your comments look? GB: brENski. Please at the very least TRY to understand…. Yes I know how the internet works, and nicknames are sometimes essential and useful, but as AlbaNo1 points out for people like you who obtusely overlook such relevant factors when it suits you, in many areas of the net one cannot post a comment without being open and including one's real identity too. There are very good reasons for this. It does indeed go some way to making people "more responsible and less likely to make inflamnatory or abusive statements if their identity is on clear display and people cant hide behind it." You can understand this point, right BrENski? It's a reasonable thing. If you agree with the principal, simple say so, and don't ignore good reasonable points, because when you do it is you who does not "see how stupid you look?" Of course it makes sense to abbreviate things elsewhere on the net. Your banking analogy is rubbish. I'm not addressing somebody in a one-to-one way when I log into my online bank account, but if I'm addressing brENski on Queenzone, openly for all to read (UNLIKE your banking thing) and I say he is an annoying irritating twat who ignores relevant factors just to get up Greg's nose", I believe I should be openly saying it, and not call myself some alias - like you do. It's not a fair or equal exchange of views and you wouldn't tolerate that in a pub or supermarket or at work or any other public or social event, would you. People don't wear masks in the street when they stop and talk and exchange frank views, do they. No, they use each other's real names… because that is respectful and civil… unless they are cowards and they make their comments anonymously through a third party. Or they ring them through. Or they send an anonymous letter, or they leave a nameless letter pinned up somewhere. I bet you've done those things in you time, right? And then, being the tit that you are, you offer this… - just because you have some grandiose -self-importance of ensuring everyone knows you are GREG BROOKS - QUEEN ARCHIVIST doesn't mean we ALL want all our details public domain for any lunatic to seek us out. It's NOTHING to do with self-importance. It's purely and simply about being open. That is my name. QZ would NOT let me use my own name initially because some other idiot was using it. So I tried to use Queen's Archivist instead, but some other mad sod had that too!!! So I use Queen's Archivist (without the plural 's'). I'm being open and not hiding, BrENski. I am. You are not. So don't criticise me about being grandiose -self-importance, because that's just silly and annoying, like a lot of things you say in your unbalanced loaded biassed way. You say… people use their nicknames - because it saves having to type their full name into everything every time they log in. Yes, fine. I perfectly understand that. But… on the occasions when you want to say something confrontational or personally insulting, I think it's right you simply offer your full real name (especially if the other person has done likewise) so that EVERYONE knows who's saying what. Argue with that you annoying little man. AND…. in such a scenario of openness and transparency, people like you would - as AlbaNo1 rightly points out - suddenly say fewer nasty or provocative things. That WOULD happen, just like it happens on newspaper forums where people HAVE to be open, or they get no air time. It stops nasty comments, cowardly insinuation, online bullying (to some extent), etc, and it means that human beings can converse openly and honestly and not be perceived as spineless hiding cowardly sods…. like I perceive you to be… and they can STILL keep their aliases too, for banking and the like. Stop countering my points just and only because they come from me, B. That just makes YOU look silly in the same way as you say I look silly. When you agree with something, say so. You only comment on the things you disagree with and keep quiet about the points you think are fair, and this is conspicuously and blatantly clear. YOU, dear boy, are one of those people that would buy a boxed set, notice 265 brilliant aspects about it, love it, play it endlessly, but then comment only on the missing ONE item, or the misspelt word and missing comma in the discography. YOU are the type of person who criticises me for the errors in my Live Book, even though it was written before the internet was there to make it simple to criticise, and even though I actually wrote in the intro it was bound to contain errors because it was written largely from letters and lists sent to me by Queen fans relying on their memories. And all the while…. YOU yourself do nothing. You do nothing and offer nothing, write or research nothing, good or bad. You offer and create ONLY easy criticism of other people and/or their work. |
| Queen Archivist 26.04.2016 07:29 |
AlbaNo1 wrote: To play devils advocate in support of GBs point, there is a national newspaper site I am on that insists full names to be divulged if wishing to be registered contribute to forum's . I guess the idea is that people will be more responsible and less likely to make inflamnatory or abusive statements if their identity is on clear display and people cant hide behind it. However....most chat sites or fourms of music sites its obviously nicknames that are used. GB: You are dead right. And I think there are excellent reasons why the papers do this. Imagine how many more cowards and nutters would air their views there if they did NOT have to include their real name. BrENski cannot comprehend this crucial detail evidently. |
| Cruella de Vil 26.04.2016 08:01 |
Dear Greg, time for a nice meal and a few pints or a damn good bottle of red. You probably have better things to occupy yourself with. To the other commentors, let it rest and move on. |
| brENsKi 26.04.2016 09:14 |
Queen Archivist wrote: GB: brENski. Please at the very least TRY to understand…. Yes I know how the internet works, and nicknames are sometimes essential and useful, but as AlbaNo1 points out for people like you who obtusely overlook such relevant factors when it suits you, in many areas of the net one cannot post a comment without being open and including one's real identity too. There are very good reasons for this. It does indeed go some way to making people "more responsible and less likely to make inflamnatory or abusive statements if their identity is on clear display and people cant hide behind it." You can understand this point, right BrENski? It's a reasonable thing. If you agree with the principal, simple say so, and don't ignore good reasonable points, because when you do it is you who does not "see how stupid you look?" Of course it makes sense to abbreviate things elsewhere on the net. Your banking analogy is rubbish. I'm not addressing somebody in a one-to-one way when I log into my online bank account, but if I'm addressing brENski on Queenzone, openly for all to read (UNLIKE your banking thing) and I say he is an annoying irritating twat who ignores relevant factors just to get up Greg's nose", I believe I should be openly saying it, and not call myself some alias - like you do. It's not a fair or equal exchange of views and you wouldn't tolerate that in a pub or supermarket or at work or any other public or social event, would you. People don't wear masks in the street when they stop and talk and exchange frank views, do they. No, they use each other's real names… because that is respectful and civil… unless they are cowards and they make their comments anonymously through a third party. Or they ring them through. Or they send an anonymous letter, or they leave a nameless letter pinned up somewhere. I bet you've done those things in you time, right? And then, being the tit that you are, you offer this… - just because you have some grandiose -self-importance of ensuring everyone knows you are GREG BROOKS - QUEEN ARCHIVIST doesn't mean we ALL want all our details public domain for any lunatic to seek us out. It's NOTHING to do with self-importance. It's purely and simply about being open. That is my name. QZ would NOT let me use my own name initially because some other idiot was using it. So I tried to use Queen's Archivist instead, but some other mad sod had that too!!! So I use Queen's Archivist (without the plural 's'). I'm being open and not hiding, BrENski. I am. You are not. So don't criticise me about being grandiose -self-importance, because that's just silly and annoying, like a lot of things you say in your unbalanced loaded biassed way. You say… people use their nicknames - because it saves having to type their full name into everything every time they log in. Yes, fine. I perfectly understand that. But… on the occasions when you want to say something confrontational or personally insulting, I think it's right you simply offer your full real name (especially if the other person has done likewise) so that EVERYONE knows who's saying what. Argue with that you annoying little man. AND…. in such a scenario of openness and transparency, people like you would - as AlbaNo1 rightly points out - suddenly say fewer nasty or provocative things. That WOULD happen, just like it happens on newspaper forums where people HAVE to be open, or they get no air time. It stops nasty comments, cowardly insinuation, online bullying (to some extent), etc, and it means that human beings can converse openly and honestly and not be perceived as spineless hiding cowardly sods…. like I perceive you to be… and they can STILL keep their aliases too, for banking and the like. Stop countering my points just and only because they come from me, B. That just makes YOU look silly in the same way as you say I look silly. When you agree with something, say so. You only comment on the things you disagree with and keep quiet about the points you think are fair, and this is conspicuously and blatantly clear. YOU, dear boy, are one of those people that would buy a boxed set, notice 265 brilliant aspects about it, love it, play it endlessly, but then comment only on the missing ONE item, or the misspelt word and missing comma in the discography. YOU are the type of person who criticises me for the errors in my Live Book, even though it was written before the internet was there to make it simple to criticise, and even though I actually wrote in the intro it was bound to contain errors because it was written largely from letters and lists sent to me by Queen fans relying on their memories. And all the while…. YOU yourself do nothing. You do nothing and offer nothing, write or research nothing, good or bad. You offer and create ONLY easy criticism of other people and/or their work.why would i feel the need to pretend i agree with anything you ever say? everything you says/write is unmitigated rubbish. as for your book - two things: 1] you chose to write a book - so just accept criticism for the innumerate errors contained within. - and yet again - you blame "the fans" saying it was their accounts - it was YOUR BOOK GREG - you alone are responsible for the content 2] last time i checked it wasn't filed under "Fiction" - therefore it's allegedly a work of "Non-Fiction" - so it should be largely true/accurate - your book averaged out at greater than 1 error per page - astoundingly bad - even by your slipshod standards |
| Ozz 26.04.2016 13:01 |
It's quite alarming that the archivist of our favourite band, cannot control himself online, and clearly have some kind of "issue" that makes him feel compelled to try to "win" discussions over the internet and alienate the band fan base, But I don't know what's worst: - That we, fans have this place that lacks of proper moderation - That GB comes here to do this kind of threads - or the fact that some Qz'rs are blindly behind him, maybe expecting some kind of special treatment back from QP Queenzone as Usual... |
| RS_Protos 26.04.2016 13:15 |
It's all about riding the money waive with QPL/BM/RT/etc, like GB said, releases are only for the masses with something little extra included so the hard core fans would buy it too. I don't think that can be more straight forward or hard to understand. Look at the releases over the last 20 years, how much more proof do we need? So until that waive goes down I don't see many changes. |
| Sebastian 26.04.2016 15:19 |
Ozz wrote: But I don't know what's worst: - That we, fans have this place that lacks of proper moderation - That GB comes here to do this kind of threads - or the fact that some Qz'rs are blindly behind him, maybe expecting some kind of special treatment back from QPIMO, the worst part is none of those, but the fact QPL turn a blind eye to such behaviour and name-calling coming from their official archivist, or the fact there's so little quality control on his part of the job (the aforementioned multiple errors on his book and liner-notes, etc., which he's largely responsible for). |
| Battler 26.04.2016 21:18 |
- Sebastian: Even Queen themselves are making mistakes, such as Brian claiming It's A Hard Life was never performed live. And Why would Queen care about Greg's behavior here when all they have to do is have a read and notice Greg's behavior is just the product of the atmosphere. If I was in Greg's position, I think I would lose my temper just as easily over here, because the sense of entitlement and not being satisfied with anything is rampant. |
| Daburcor? 26.04.2016 21:41 |
I imagine it must really suck to have a bunch of random strangers (some far stranger than others) not only know who you are and what you do, but also have a lot to say about it. However, Mr. Brooks, you are the official archivist for one of the biggest, most enduringly popular musical entities of the past 50-100 years. Couple that with the internet being what it is and you, however unfortunately, lose out on the ability to have the choice in anonymity you once did. Like it or not - and I can definitely understand choosing not to - you became a public figure when you took the job working for Queen. Heavy scrutiny comes with the territory of being a public figure. It's a shit situation no doubt, but ultimately one in which you will remain until you no longer hold the position you currently hold. |
| five 27.04.2016 05:31 |
i dont post that often , as a 46 year old bloke , smoker drinker typical stereo type Brit but a massive Queen fan of the 80's yes the 80's when Queen were massive , i do appreciate the bits and pieces that are released from the archives , thats exactly what they are and should be doing now , lets face it the writing creativity of a 3 minute pop song is long gone , and i appreciate what Queen archivists are doing. I only hear of Greg on here and if i had any any old Queen stuff he could gladly have it. wow wouldn't it be great to be credited. you can gladly have a copy of my TDK tape when i recorded Queen at live aid in its true broadcast , sounds awesome on my old tape deck !!! if its lost no problem l wll do you a copy lol. sadly i dont have any other stuff , i did tape queen interviews in 89 radio 1 just fitted nicely on my tdk c60 , you can have that. i did go to knebworth but took no pictures i was too busy having the time of my life so only memories remain , in fact ive just remembered this ugly bird on the bus down to stevanage thats another story. anyway keep up the good work Greg , whatever your next project is , please try and get some more eighties rarities out , the 70's were a drag i will be honest i never bought hammersmith , i am biased caue i was there but please if anything exists from knebworth that would be nice. |
| Queen Archivist 27.04.2016 05:34 |
dave76 wrote: Hey Greg. You should answer people when they send you pictures which you'd requested. I've sent you some regarding the Queen radio project and didn't get any feedback. A reply would be nice don't you think.GB: Dave, I've had nearly 90 replies so far and I've replied to every single one with no exceptions. I'm guessing yours got caught up in spam, which is commonplace these days. Please re-send. |
| Queen Archivist 27.04.2016 05:46 |
Daburcor? wrote: I imagine it must really suck to have a bunch of random strangers (some far stranger than others) not only know who you are and what you do, but also have a lot to say about it. However, Mr. Brooks, you are the official archivist for one of the biggest, most enduringly popular musical entities of the past 50-100 years. Couple that with the internet being what it is and you, however unfortunately, lose out on the ability to have the choice in anonymity you once did. Like it or not - and I can definitely understand choosing not to - you became a public figure when you took the job working for Queen. Heavy scrutiny comes with the territory of being a public figure. It's a shit situation no doubt, but ultimately one in which you will remain until you no longer hold the position you currently hold.GB: Hello Daburcor. Regarding, "you, however unfortunately, lose out on the ability to have the choice in anonymity you once did. Like it or not - and I can definitely understand choosing not to - you became a public figure when you took the job working for Queen. " I have no wish to be anonymous on forums such as this. In other aspects of my life, sure, yes, I enjoy my privacy and the respectful fans I encounter wherever I go who also respect my privacy for the most part. Things are only bad here on QZ. Don't get me wrong though, it's water off a duck's back to me, as I've said before. QZ is only a forum, it's not life or death. My main point was simply that I think people should stand by what they have to say - good, bad, nasty or otherwise - and do so openly; have the courage of their convictions. If I deem it ok to have a critical negative go at someone on a forum or actually in person, they know exactly who it's coming from because I don't hide. But the reverse isn't so, and that's not fair or equal. If I'm being open and accessible, then so too should the other people I'm speaking with, in my opinion. That to me is a basic human courtesy. Can you imagine what would happen if you approached Brian in the street, wearing a mask to hide your identity because you had something to say to him but didn't want him to know who you are. He'd think you were mad or rude, or a threat, or an escapee from an asylum, or all of these things. I certainly doubt he'd be too impressed. I'd feel that way too because I think it's such a basic thing to ask of a respectful fellow human being. |
| Chief Mouse 27.04.2016 08:21 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Perhaps he used Queenzone's PM system, which is not very good to say the least.dave76 wrote: Hey Greg. You should answer people when they send you pictures which you'd requested. I've sent you some regarding the Queen radio project and didn't get any feedback. A reply would be nice don't you think.GB: Dave, I've had nearly 90 replies so far and I've replied to every single one with no exceptions. I'm guessing yours got caught up in spam, which is commonplace these days. Please re-send. |
| Queenman!! 27.04.2016 08:35 |
Mr. Brooks, The majority of Queenzone is prepared to help you, give advise or whatever. But let's face it.... Will the deal be two sided? |
| Mr.QueenFan 27.04.2016 15:13 |
Queenman!! wrote: Mr. Brooks, The majority of Queenzone is prepared to help you, give advise or whatever. But let's face it.... Will the deal be two sided?Why does it have to be two sided? Greg asked for pictures for the next project. If people want to contribute something positive for a Queen product they have a chance to do it. I don't know why Queen should give something back for the fans to help them. If people don't want to contribute to this project, they don't have to, but let's not turn this into a negotiation of i give you this in exchange of information, considering that Greg isn't free to share what he wants with the fans. |
| Mark_Glasgow 28.04.2016 07:00 |
Im Mark, I'm in Glasgow Just thought I would clear that up :) |
| paulosham 28.04.2016 15:02 |
Didn't catch that. Who and where are you? |
| Queenman!! 28.04.2016 15:11 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:============================================Queenman!! wrote: Mr. Brooks, The majority of Queenzone is prepared to help you, give advise or whatever. But let's face it.... Will the deal be two sided?Why does it have to be two sided? Greg asked for pictures for the next project. If people want to contribute something positive for a Queen product they have a chance to do it. I don't know why Queen should give something back for the fans to help them. If people don't want to contribute to this project, they don't have to, but let's not turn this into a negotiation of i give you this in exchange of information, considering that Greg isn't free to share what he wants with the fans. I think you don't get my point really. Imagine a lot of people contribute to make a great and wonderful product with sharing their personal recordings, pictures and other stuff. and in the end you get a product with the content of the latest Hammersmith release... And I don't blame mr. Brooks for that decision. get it? |
| Queen Archivist 28.04.2016 19:50 |
Mark_Glasgow wrote: Im Mark, I'm in Glasgow Just thought I would clear that up :)GB: Good for you Mark. Open, honest, not hiding away. There are those on QZ that cannot conceive of functioning here without a nickname. You prove it can be done. |
| Sebastian 29.04.2016 08:11 |
Equal status does not equal everyone stating their name, location, age and occupation. It equals everyone deciding on whether they want to share personal information or not, and if/when they do, how much of it and to whom. |
| Costa86 29.04.2016 09:19 |
Ozz wrote: It's quite alarming that the archivist of our favourite band, cannot control himself online, and clearly have some kind of "issue" that makes him feel compelled to try to "win" discussions over the internet and alienate the band fan base, But I don't know what's worst: - That we, fans have this place that lacks of proper moderation - That GB comes here to do this kind of threads - or the fact that some Qz'rs are blindly behind him, maybe expecting some kind of special treatment back from QP Queenzone as Usual...Quite agree. I find some of Greg's recent posts a bit unprofessional. Like it or not, he represents the archiving elements of one of the biggest bands in history. I think this is a big responsibility which requires a certain code of conduct online. And I say this fully aware of some really unmerited posts attacking Greg, which are an absolute disgrace and very immature. |
| Costa86 29.04.2016 09:21 |
Before the age of Facebook, the general rule online was to be anonymous. I think this is a good thing - especially in cases of forums such as this. |
| ParisNair 30.04.2016 11:51 |
Mark_Glasgow wrote: Im Mark, I'm in Glasgow Just thought I would clear that up :)My name is not Nair, and I am not from Paris. |
| Daniel Nester 01.05.2016 20:37 |
Give 'em hell, Greg. |