by date
An inconvenient game?
An inconvenient game?
| Name: | Mark Frohnmayer |  |
|---|---|---|
| Date Posted: | Jun 13, 2007 | |
| Rating: |  Not Rated | |
| Public: | YES | |
| Comments: | YES | |
| RSS Feed: |  or Subscribe with  . | |
| Profile Page: | View profile page for Mark Frohnmayer |
Blog post
Looks like Microsoft teamed up with Games For Change to create a game design contest that steps beyond just good mechanics -- check it out. Brought to mind a conversation I had with Andy Schatz (of Pocketwatch fame) at GDC and the environmentally aware messages he's putting into his games.
How cool would it be to see a Torque X global warming game on XBLA? Hmm...
How cool would it be to see a Torque X global warming game on XBLA? Hmm...
Recent Blog Posts
| List: | 06/13/07 - An inconvenient game? 08/22/06 - Sometimes you can't do everything. 08/04/06 - State of the Garage 10/17/05 - Plan for Mark Frohnmayer 07/29/05 - Plan for Mark Frohnmayer 05/25/05 - Plan for Mark Frohnmayer 03/28/04 - Plan for Mark Frohnmayer 03/18/04 - Plan for Mark Frohnmayer |
|---|
Submit your own resources!| Anton Bursch (Jun 13, 2007 at 17:02 GMT) |
| David Blake (Jun 13, 2007 at 17:29 GMT) |
| Martin Schultz (Jun 13, 2007 at 18:56 GMT) |
| Eric Forhan (Jun 13, 2007 at 19:16 GMT) |
Quote:
How cool would it be to see a Torque X global warming game on XBLA? Hmm...
You mean one that just takes your money and does nothing substantial?
*ducks*
| Joshua Dallman (Jun 13, 2007 at 19:20 GMT) |
No one has benefitted more from capitalism than Microsoft, and there's no greater cause for climate change than that same capitalism. Furthermore it reinforces the paradigm of complacentcy to an all-powerful "other" instead of empowering ourselves. Boycott the contest and create your own game independently. This is free advertising for Microsoft via PR at its worst. "Climate change" is a meme with our generation, so what does Microsoft do, co-opt it. Smart marketing.
| Anton Bursch (Jun 13, 2007 at 19:45 GMT) |
Quote:
Unchecked capitalism, big corporations, and the ensuing rampant consumerism culture they propogate are the reasons we have a thinning atmosphere in the first place.
I think it is a little bit more complex than that.
I don't know if making it 'us against them' is going to help make progress. I know that there are a lot of fingers to point, but you just essentially blamed everyone in the first world countries and then said that the solution is that we should all be isolationists(independants).
I used to agree. But then one day I realised that my isolated blaming wasn't actually doing any good. That moment was when a comedian said he can't stand people who think they are too good for politics, because they accomplish nothing. Isolation from capitalism and big corporations and consumerism doesn't stop them from being bad. Why not work with them and fight for a change.
I don't know, just my thoughts. Glad you said yours.
| Kenneth Holst (Jun 13, 2007 at 19:53 GMT) |
| Christian S (Jun 13, 2007 at 22:10 GMT) |
And besides that, Big Corps are made out of people like you, me, and that one over there. All consuming, wanting better salary and letting out 'hot' air.
Every contest brings out creativitity -and that have allways been the best puch forward!
'njoy
| Alan James (Jun 13, 2007 at 22:19 GMT) |
Quote:
I think it is a little bit more complex than that.
Absolutely right. Let's play the game:
Quote:
Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, behind only carbon dioxide, according to the new report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...Much man-made methane comes from a surprising low-tech source, "It's cows burping," said Elaine Matthews, a methane expert at the Goddard Institute fro Space Studies, explaining that cud-chewing animals like cows and sheep, along with other agricultural animals and processes, release enough methane to double the natural concentration in the atmosphere.
Source:
scienceline.org/2007/03/23/env_knight_ipcccows/
Quote:
India has the largest concentration of livestock in the world,(250-300 million cattle, 60 million water buffalo, 120 million goats, and 40 million sheep), having one-third of the world's cattle on approximately 3 percent of the world's land area.
Source:
tedeboy.tripod.com/drmichaelwfox/id47.html
Is India going to raise the emissions standards for cows? Are they going to have a paradigm shift and suddenly not hold them as "holy", and chow down on a few good steaks (or bad ones considering the livestock there is in an appalling condition -- which further adds to their "increased emissions problems")? Are cows covered in the Kyoto Protocol? Oh wait, India is not held responsible for their emissions under Kyoto...in fact none of the major developing countries like China, India, Brazil, and Mexico--are covered by the accord...and let's not forget rice paddies...
See how easy it is? We, as people, like to paint the canvas with broad brushes and think we have discovered some profound and mystic truth. "I can tell you whose fault it is, it is some faceless amorphous entity that preys on the innocent, never satisfied and is always growing and of course is very distinct from the "real" humanity and evil to its core. Oh, and definitely not me, in case you were wondering."
But it's just not that simple. Never was and never will be.
The problem encompasses all of us and the solution is not some stark, epic, black and white struggle against a vast evil conspiracy but more like a lot of little struggles in the grays and shadows that we all can claim having a part of at one time or another.
But blaming someone other than ourselves is a lot more fun...
Edited on Jun 13, 2007 22:36 GMT
| Chris Calef (Jun 13, 2007 at 22:21 GMT) |
What I want to know is what Microsoft is gonna do when I try to publish a historical game about American foreign policy on the XBox.
EDIT:
@Ken: Anarchy doesn't work, agreed. Got anything that does work, while you're at it?
Edited on Jun 13, 2007 22:23 GMT
| Brian Hill (Jun 13, 2007 at 22:35 GMT) |
As far as games made for social/political change, I'd say why not? I remember somebody saying some years back (probably Ray Kurzweil) that video games could be the next great art form. Whether they have or could become that or not, social and political commentary is pretty common in many games, though not always obvious.
In any case, while it might kill us all, global warming at least provides new fodder for post-apocalyptic-type RPG games. Nuclear war was getting a little old...
| Joshua Dallman (Jun 13, 2007 at 23:03 GMT) |
Quote:
Attempting to get the most milk or meat from animals, dairy farmers and ranchers commonly feed their cows three or four times the amount necessary for the animals to maintain their weights. Because a cow's methane production depends on the amount of food they eat, overfeeding increases methane emissions.
Let's ask why it is that farmers have to go against what nature intended to overfeed these cows in the first place. To stay competitive in the capitalist marketplace just so they can survive, not even thrive but survive. If our economic system valued farmers more, and valued the environment more, they wouldn't have to be so competitive in the first place and we could all still eat our cow.
Yes the issue is complex with many contributing causes, but it's undeniable that one of the major causes is an economic system that places value only on production and profit and nothing on the environment and humanity. Corporations are fictional entities that exist only as a legal construct on paper, they cannot care about the environment, and doing so is in opposition of what they were engineered for (profit). When I see blatant greenwashing by the likes of Starbucks, Microsoft, BP, whomever, it makes me sick, especially when people think these companies actually care or that their greenwashing will really make a difference. Maybe some person there cares, but not the company, and not the economic system behind the company.
Why no game sponsorship by Microsoft to address timeless issues like AIDS, rainforest destruction, and poverty? Wouldn't that be ironic -- Microsoft sponsors a game design competition to raise awareness of poverty. But poverty etc aren't hot memes right now and global warming is, all they're doing is capitalizing on it (like they were designed to do) and anyone who participates is just going right along with it. Which is fine if that's your choice, but be aware and ask questions about what's really going on and what intentions are behind them.
Don't you think MS could just throw a $10k bill at someone and have them make the game themself? But that wouldn't get the PR and image of goodwill such a contest like this brings, which is all they're trying to do anyway. Put on a contest, look like a hero, have it propogate through the blogosphere. And it worked.
Edited on Jun 13, 2007 23:03 GMT
| Eric Hartman (Jun 14, 2007 at 00:04 GMT) |
You seem to be complaining that corporations only do what is profitable and because of that they will never change. Corporations change their policies whenever consumer opinion about that policy affects purchases. This is the primary mechanism of change in a capitalist society. Consumer opinion changes, companies change their behavior in order to remain competitive. You should be happy every time public opinion changes in favor of environmentalism or a corporation recognizes that change (as is the case here).
Quote:
Wouldn't that be ironic -- Microsoft sponsors a game design competition to raise awareness of poverty.
Almost as ironic as millionaire musicians holding concerts for the same thing, or people without aids raising awareness of aids, free people having a rally for someone in prison - oh wait that's not ironic at all, unless MS is going around making people poor and aids activists are going around giving people aids.
If you were paying any attention, you'd know that the Gates Foundation has spent billions on global health charity - it's one of the largest charitable foundations in the world.
| Chris Calef (Jun 14, 2007 at 00:19 GMT) |
Quote:
Corporations change their policies whenever consumer opinion about that policy affects purchases. This is the primary mechanism of change in a capitalist society.
This is true, but the fact that it is such a terrible mechanism for change explains exactly how we got to the sorry state we're in. The vast majority of consumers don't know or care about the effects of their purchases, and as a rule they don't take part in effective boycotts, except for highly hyped poster-child cases like dolphin-safe tuna. Even there, all the companies have to do is make token modifications or just straight up lie (dolphin-safe tuna doesn't legally mean a thing, BTW) and 99% of the public considers it a job well done and goes back to what they were doing.
Add to this the fact that the vast majority of the public gets practically all of their information from mainstream media outlets which are owned by TEN multinational corporations (not making that up, there are TEN) and you find that not only consumer opinion but democracy itself is entirely beholden to a small number of financially motivated corporate entities. This is not a recipe for a just and sustainable future. IMHO.
| Anton Bursch (Jun 14, 2007 at 00:29 GMT) |
There's gotta be a balance between laying blame and doing good. This is why I don't like it when people are polar in either way, for or against. There's nothing wrong with people being complex. People do good and they do bad and they do bad and it does good and they do good and it turns out bad. That's life. You try to do the best you can. For students who want to get some attention as game developers, this contest is great for them. And there's nothing stopping someone from making an amazing game that really does promote global change for the better.
| Chris Calef (Jun 14, 2007 at 00:40 GMT) |
| Alan James (Jun 14, 2007 at 00:57 GMT) |
And yeah, he should have thrown 10k bill at someone instead of at that silly Gates Foundation that's somehow managed to suck up 5 Billion of his pocket change.
| Joshua Dallman (Jun 14, 2007 at 02:35 GMT) |
As an aside, check out the politics behind another social problem video game called Village: The Game. That's another one loaded with irony. You have third world impoverishment that's driven by capitalism, and the solution the game offers to this problem? More capitalism! Build up industry in third world countries to solve the problems created by industry in wealthier countires! Brilliant.
I'm not saying all social awareness games are bad. You can do good with games. I think what Andy is doing with his Wildlife Tycoon series is great, it's grassroots bottom-up, not spoon-fed corporate top-down. That is to say, it's indie and it's genuine. He's as interested in promoting the ideas behind them as he is being able to survive as an indie studio. It's not a tax write-off for him. It's not a PR stunt. It's not greenwashing. This contest, however, is.
| Marcus (Jun 14, 2007 at 02:42 GMT) |
Edited on Jun 14, 2007 02:43 GMT
| Anton Bursch (Jun 14, 2007 at 02:55 GMT) |
About Village: The Game, I couldn't agree more.
| Alan James (Jun 14, 2007 at 03:22 GMT) |
Won't bother beating my head against the wall any longer, but I'll leave you with two words and hope that some day you'll understand...
Friedrich Hayek
Good luck...
| Thomas Buscaglia (Jun 14, 2007 at 04:42 GMT) |
| Gustavo Munoz (Jun 14, 2007 at 06:44 GMT) |
| James Dunlap (Jun 14, 2007 at 12:53 GMT) |
Yes, I do think we all need to take care of the environment. But blaming it on cooperations and capitalism just tells me you are a socialist and should be in Sweden, not that your worried about the environment. Because some of the strongest powers that are fighting for the environment are cooperations. There are even those that do nothing but try and protect the environment (I think they went to far in my state but what the heck).
And about the global warming game thing. I just don't see how something that politically charged would be fun.
Edited on Jun 14, 2007 12:56 GMT
| Ted Southard (Jun 14, 2007 at 13:01 GMT) |
Now, let's dispense with the BS of companies being inherently evil. Companies are driven by people, and people may or may not have good intentions. If corporations are evil, then what does that say about Garage Games, which is a corporation? Am I evil because I own an LLC, which is a corporation? You may or may not be able to tell the intentions of the people in the company by the actions of the company, and the act of being a company does not automatically make one bad.
Microsoft is not a monolithic, single-celled organism (neither is any other collective group of people), and it is wrong to refer to them (or any other group) in such a way, as it promotes fear while discouraging understanding. Microsoft has thousands of employees, many of whom probably disagree with it's own policies, with some of those working to change things. And inside that subset there is inevitably a portion of people that are talented enough in their skillset to rise to positions of authority and responsibility. Microsoft also has many departments, and in those departments, people change position. So it goes to reason that, despite the past, there may be people in Microsoft who truly want to make a difference with the world by hosting this contest and trying to reach people who would otherwise not care about the issues.
Polarizing this to be something of "good vs evil" helps absolutely noone, and hurts many who would otherwise have been helped by the few individuals who, having been enlightened by seeing this game, have been inspired to action.
| David Blake (Jun 14, 2007 at 13:52 GMT) |
You're evil because you're you! :)
| Ted Southard (Jun 14, 2007 at 14:01 GMT) |
Quote:
You're not evil because you own an LLC, Ted.
You're evil because you're you! :)
Exactly my point ;)
| Clint Herron (Jun 14, 2007 at 14:35 GMT) |
Quote:
As an aside, check out the politics behind another social problem video game called Village: The Game. That's another one loaded with irony. You have third world impoverishment that's driven by capitalism, and the solution the game offers to this problem? More capitalism! Build up industry in third world countries to solve the problems created by industry in wealthier countires! Brilliant.
I dunno'. When my wife and I were in Africa last summer, it was really neat to see low-level capitalism at work. Anyone with a cell phone could set up a table and chair and make their own little payphone booth (they call those things "space to space") -- you could hardly walk two hundred yards without coming to one of those things -- it was a great way for people to make money on a small scale and help support themselves. The cellular phone has opened up a lot of doors in Africa, and is a wonderful example of appropriate technology helping people out, and making their lives better.
I remember when people pitched in to buy our bus driver / guard a bicycle, and later a water filter. It was amazing to see how much a little appropriate technology was able to make life better for him and his family -- I think that small companies enabling things like that are what Darian is trying to promote with Village: The Game. You may know more about it than I do, but from what I know, top-down corporate ventures often fail in 3rd world places like Africa -- I've seen some of the best success when things are grass-roots, but they often need enabling (education and materials) from outside sources.
You just seemed to slam them pretty hard, but from what I've seen first-hand, it really seems like what Village is trying to do is much more than just greenwashing.
Edit: Ted -- very well put. I think those are wise things to keep in mind.
Edited on Jun 14, 2007 14:55 GMT
| Anton Bursch (Jun 14, 2007 at 14:41 GMT) |
Well said.
@Joshua
Don't take this wrong, it is not a criticisim at all. But while you are talking anti-corp you work PR for GG and most of what you say about indie games on this website is to push sales and promote GG and GG Tech. And you do a wonderful job in my opinion. But, in this I think you are slightly missing the trees for the forest.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I don't come to the final conclusion that we should pick a side. I grew up in church and went to seminary and volunteered as a minister for 2 years and I lived and breathed 'us against them' until one day I realised that 'them' is 'us' too. The worst thing in the world that anyone can do is 'demonise' or 'dehumanise' other people. It's simple and it allows people to justify slavery and genocide and racism and classism and sexism and even abuse of the environment. I agree that you can't stand by and let people bullshit uncontested but I don't think it's a good idea to just point a finger and say 'they are the bad guys'. Unless it's EA of course. :P
| Joshua Dallman (Jun 14, 2007 at 19:24 GMT) |
My original point was, and remains, that this contest is greenwashing by Microsoft to take advantage of a current hot topic and co-opt it. I've seen Microsoft from the inside and they do not care about the environment, they care about profit alone, and that is fine, that's what they were built to do.
I am not against capitalism in concept, I am against capitalism as it is practiced today, i.e. unchecked capitalism where the corporations line the pockets of politicians, get them elected, then have free reign to abuse the environment then turn around and spend millions on PR to cover it up. I am not against corporations, I am against corporate abuse and corporate control over everything including functions that should be served by our government. I am not against profit, I am against profit at the expense of the environment and human happiness. I am not "us against them," but your failure to understand the complexity of my position has you putting that position onto me. I'm not looking to convert anyone, I know my beliefs are considered radical, I just encourage you to think about motives and the bigger picture when corporations suddenly have environmental concerns and not have a zero-analysis kneejerk reaction of "oh, it's for the environment so it must be good." I believe this contest does more harm than good and there are those that disagree. That's fine but please don't twist my words. Further disclaimer, it goes without saying that any opinion expressed by a GG employee is not that of GG. And I would further add that GG's mission always was and has been to help indies, just like Andy Schatz's mission is to raise awareness of the environment, that both companies profit (necessarily just to survive) in no way makes them evil or changes the sincerity of their original mission, to suggest otherwise is absolutely insulting.
Again, all I'm saying is that this contest reeks of greenwashing, insincere concern for the sole purpose of corporate image gain.
| Clint Herron (Jun 14, 2007 at 19:48 GMT) |
Quote:
Corporations are fictional entities that exist only as a legal construct on paper, they cannot care about the environment, and doing so is in opposition of what they were engineered for (profit).
I think I would agree with you on this, Josh.
It's hard, because the vote of the dollar is almost worth more than a vote in the polling booth.
[hypothetical] A customer is at the store, and there is a lamp made in a country that cares nothing for the environment, and not much more about human rights. Right next to it is a nearly identical lamp made in a country that is leading the way for emissions and human rights. The second lamp costs $30, and the first costs $25 (lower prices possible through exploitation of the environment and people).
On average, which will people buy? [/hypothetical]
There's a reason why Walmart is stocked so full of things made in China.
There's a reason why I don't shop at Walmart.
But who is driving Walmart's policies?
Is it the company?
Or is the customers?
If people wanted to buy things made in such a way as to support the environment and to fight human rights atrocities, stores would stock them -- stores stock what sell. To do otherwise is to put your employees on the unemployment line.
Until paying customers stop shouting "give me the cheapest possible thing and the world be damned!" then I see corporations as having their hands largely tied.
I see what you're saying about this contest smelling very tellingly like a greenwashing -- I think I would agree with you there. But perhaps the silver lining to this cloud is that customers can be educated a little bit, and learn more how their small purchase decisions have monumental effects.
Maybe I could enter a game about that. :)
--clint
Edited on Jun 14, 2007 19:55 GMT
| Anton Bursch (Jun 14, 2007 at 20:22 GMT) |
You used to work for Microsoft. I see why this makes you sick now. Yeah, I've had my bad experiences working with certain companies too and seeing them act like Saints makes me sick as well.
I only been stiffed twice in my programming career. Both by charities. One worked for the goverment and the other was religous. Both decided they couldn't afford to pay me after they spent too much money traveling and promoting their causes at golf courses and beaches and parties and fine resteraunts. I will never work with another charity. That burned me hard. Especially since I had worked extra hard for both because I thought it was for a good cause.
| Joshua Dallman (Jun 14, 2007 at 21:13 GMT) |
| Nauris Krauze (Jun 14, 2007 at 23:25 GMT) |
I lived in "communism" for a short while of my life. Got the impression it doesn`t work too well :)
| Ted Southard (Jun 15, 2007 at 00:06 GMT) |
Quote:
Somone with three jobs making ends meet isn't going to purchase fair-trade coffee, someone with enough money to not have the price difference impact them is.
That's the crux of it right there, as well as a possible solution, from my POV: If these companies want to do something that makes them out to be good guys, and there's a chance to educate a consumer group with some disposable money to a subject that they can then use to pressure said company into changing for the better, then why not utilize that very tool in order to effect change against itself?
That's my 2 cents.
Edit: Because some days I can't friggin' spell.
Edited on Jun 15, 2007 00:07 GMT
| Jeremy Alessi (Jun 15, 2007 at 06:09 GMT) |
Although I do see the point that Josh is making I can't help but feeling that it's a good thing for MS and Games for Change to team up on this. Perhaps in the end it is mostly a marketing/PR ploy but it doesn't matter because they are supporting a seperate entity in Games for Change. That organization really is in this to make a difference in the world even if Microsoft is in it to make money.
The whole poverty discussion is a bit moot too. If you want to make it bigger than working for Wal-Mart in your life then push yourself to create something useful or take student loans out and go back to school so you can work for a better career. You make it sound like capitalism is holding people back when it has opened more doors than any financial structure in history. I don't think it's the end all be all but I fail to see how this contest is negative, even with that in mind. Furthermore, something to keep in mind is that there have always been class distictions in society, kings, queens, etc... In modern times we have filthy rich CEO's but that doesn't stop us from living the highest quality of life ever does it? To top it off you don't even have to have birthrights these days to become a filthy rich CEO ;)
Aside from all that people reserve the right at any time to make purchasing decisions, management decisions, and all lifestyle decisions with the best in mind for the greater good. That has always been the case and I don't think that you should even suggest or let people think for one second that a capitalists society should be any excuse from doing the right thing. To suggest such a thing is to state that the world is deterministic and that free will is an illusion. It's an excuse that has been used far to often in the past.
Regardless of your job, country, race, class, whatever ... you are always responsible for the greater good.
| Mark McCoy (Jun 15, 2007 at 07:41 GMT) |
| Mark Frohnmayer (Jun 15, 2007 at 07:47 GMT) |
Some random thoughts that may or may not represent what I believe:
1. Corporations are people too. Or at least made up of people, many of whom probably honestly think that spreading the word about Global Climate Change is a good idea and are trying to do their part. One good way gamers can reduce their carbon footprint is to use less energy, either by using more energy-efficient devices (see this comparison of "next-gen" power consumption), or by playing less total time per day (for example, play 5 action-packed minutes of Marble Blast Ultra on the XBox 360 versus an hour of wii bowling) or by going on a bike ride.
2. It seems that most people, most of the time, generally speaking want themselves and their fellow people to live happily and in a fulfilled fashion, free of unnecessary suffering. Some even go so far as to declare such to be god-given rights.
3. If you think of laws as gameplay, is the semi-regulated globalized capitalist system the best "game" we as humans are capable of coming up with? What makes this kind of game "good". Is it when most of the "players" are having "fun"? Or is it a multiplayer game good when a small number of the players get to "win" and have "fun" and everyone else is a loser? Are global semi-regulated market capitalism and national centralized communism the only two possible ways we can organize the whole stuff-for-work game?
4. When a company is "BAD", should we hate them more if they try to become less bad? Like when Wal Mart encourages the purchase of energy-efficient bulbs (that have poisonous mercury in them, but A for effort! (ever heard of LEDs?) ). If they have a good message, people will like them more and therefore shop there and therefore they will get more business, which is BAD because Wal Mart is BAD, so Wal Mart doing anything remarkably in the direction of good must therefore be BAD. Wicked!
5. I'm not sure why I number my thoughts.
Edited on Jun 15, 2007 07:50 GMT
| Anton Bursch (Jun 15, 2007 at 15:47 GMT) |
Quote:
...I can't help but feeling that it's a good thing for MS and Games for Change to team up on this. Perhaps in the end it is mostly a marketing/PR ploy but it doesn't matter because they are supporting a seperate entity in Games for Change. That organization really is in this to make a difference in the world even if Microsoft is in it to make money.
Quote:
Corporations are people too. Or at least made up of people, many of whom probably honestly think that spreading the word about Global Climate Change is a good idea and are trying to do their part.
That's pretty much what I think about this. I think that Games for a Change is probably doing a good thing and getting sponsered by Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft getting good PR. It's like local businesses sponsering little league in exchange for advertising.
The world is full of good and bad and sometimes you just gotta take the bad with the good. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than it's ever been in the history of humanity. The world has never been as good a place to live as it is now. Women are more free today than any time in history. Tell me that isn't by itself an amazing fucking giant leap forward for humanity. The idea that race shouldn't determine whether someone is your fried or enemy. Children not being allowed to work as laborers. Slavery is not legal. We're making great progress. If you look at the big picture you can see how things are getting better and better. Yeah, we take steps backwards sometimes, but for the most part, the world is growing.
| Pat Wilson (Jun 15, 2007 at 17:15 GMT) |
Something Aweful: Photoshop Phriday -- Green Games
| Stephen Zepp (Jun 15, 2007 at 18:07 GMT) |
For example, I would never ask anyone to ever make a new Need For Speed game.
Edited on Jun 15, 2007 18:07 GMT
| Vashner (Jun 17, 2007 at 04:57 GMT) |
You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.
