The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 229
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D_BaldStockings View Post
    A few links
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...introduced.pdf

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._chaptered.pdf

    I find a few of the new amendments to be disturbing
    ...
    (b) Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a
    dog or cat, that is abandoned in any city, county, city and county,
    or judicial district may be killed humanely euthanized by the officer
    if, after a reasonable search, no owner of the animal can be found.


    [I]No mention of a vet making a decision - up to the officer. THIS ALLOWS AN OFFICER TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT WAITING FOR POTENTIALLY HOURS FOR A VET. AS OPPOSED TO LETTING AN ANIMAL DIE ON THE STREET. IAM FINE WITH THIS.

    …The cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under
    this subdivision shall constitute a lien on the animal and the animal
    shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid.


    If a seizure is deemed proper -by who? Read on
    LIEN IS FINE, THE ANIMAL CAN BE SOLD BY THE COUNTY, MANY HORSES ARE ACTUALLY SOLD BY ANIMAL CONTROL AND THERE HAVE BEEN REASONS FOR THIS, I SUPPORT THIS.

    (c) (1) Any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal
    control officer shall convey all injured cats and dogs found without
    their owners
    in a public place directly to a veterinarian known by
    the officer to be a veterinarian who ordinarily treats dogs and cats
    for a determination of whether the animal shall be immediately
    and humanely destroyed euthanized
    or shall be hospitalized under
    proper care and given emergency treatment.

    …The cost of caring for and treating any animal seized under this subdivision shall
    constitute a lien on the animal and the animal shall not be returned
    to the owner until the charges are paid.
    No veterinarian shall be
    criminally or civilly liable for any decision that he or she makes
    or for services that he or she provides pursuant to this subdivision.


    COST MUST BE REMEDIED OR ANIMAL ADOPTED, FINE WITH ME.

    So if a vet's treatment inadvertently damages, he has no liability if it was pursuant to a seizure.
    YES, NO LIABILITY FOR TREATING VET OF INJURED ANIMAL WITHOUT RESPONSIBLE OWNER.
    (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any
    peace officer, humane society officer, or any animal control officer
    may, with the approval of his or her immediate superior, humanely
    destroy euthanize any stray or abandoned animal
    in the field in
    any case where the animal is too severely injured to move or where
    a veterinarian is not available and it would be more humane to
    dispose of the animal.

    YES, HAPPENS WITH ANIMALS RUN OVER BY CARS ALL THE TIME.
    No need to find the owner in this case, or get an expert opinion on the prognosis of recovery; all up to the officer regardless of veterinary experience or lack thereof. AGREE-LET YOUR ANIMALS OUT, ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.


    (2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours
    of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. The seizing
    agency may authorize its own officer or employee to conduct the
    hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person who directed
    the seizure
    or impoundment of the animal and is not junior in rank
    to that person. The agency may utilize the services of a hearing
    officer from outside the agency
    for the purposes of complying with
    this section. FINE WITH THIS.


    The same agency that performed the seizure gets to 'hear' your case.
    Note that the word Judge does not appear here at all.

    JUDGE ? NOT A PROBLEM IF AUTHORITIES FIND YOUR ANIMAL WONDERING AND NEED TO SEIZE ANIMAL, IT IS ON YOU TO DEMONSTRATE YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE.…
    (4) The agency, department, or society employing the person
    who directed the seizure shall be responsible for the costs
    incurred
    for caring and treating the animal, if it is determined in the
    postseizure hearing that the seizing officer did not have reasonable
    grounds
    to believe very prompt action, including seizure of the
    animal, was required to protect the health or safety of the animal
    or the health or safety of others. If it is determined the seizure was
    justified, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable
    to the
    seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal,
    the charges for the seizure and care of the animal shall be a lien
    on the animal, and the animal shall not be returned to its owner
    until the charges are paid and the seizing agency or hearing officer
    has determined that the animal is physically fit or the owner
    demonstrates to the seizing agency’s or the hearing officer’s

    satisfaction that the owner can and will provide the necessary care.

    YES, THIS IS GOOD.

    So if they decide the seizure was groundless they will put themselves on the hook, otherwise you foot the bill.
    Can you see where this will create pressure and incentive?
    Remember the agency judges the hearing.
    I SEE NO INCENTIVE-THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT YOUR ANIMALS !


    (h) If any animal is properly seized under this section, the owner
    or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for the
    cost of the seizure and care of the animal. Furthermore, if the
    charges for the seizure or impoundment and any other charges
    permitted under this section are not paid within 14 days of the
    seizure,
    or, if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability
    of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted under
    this section and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be
    deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of humanely
    euthanized by the impounding officer.


    And you have 14 days from the seizure date to pay up or your animal is killed/forfeited. FINE WITH THIS, WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR THE CRAZY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE FOR THEIR ANIMALS ? HAVE YOU EVER READ ABOUT A SEIZURE CASE ? WITH THE GOP CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING WHERE IS THIS MONEY MAGICALLY COMING FROM ?

    Not even going into the if convicted all animals (including fish tank) must be immediately forfeited AND must not reside with anyone who owns an animal for 5 years...

    Might be worth another read.
    I READ IT THE FIRST TIME BUT , HEY I DON'T OWN THE TIN FOIL HAT....


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,104

    Default

    Why would anyone think it makes any sense to have animal rights extremists, that are after abolishing all use of animals, making rules to manage animals?
    Ever heard of conflict of interest?

    Any time any of those animal groups are involved, the devil will be in the details, of course.

    That is why so many fought the ill-drafted "ban horse slaughter bill" of 2007, didn't make any sense as written and would have easily been used to stop most anything else we do with horses.
    All the money and influence the HSUS threw at it was not enough to get it passed, it was so bad and non-sensical.

    The same with most any other those groups present, thankfully, so clear heads easily prevail.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Why would anyone think it makes any sense to have animal rights extremists, that are after abolishing all use of animals, making rules to manage animals?
    Ever heard of conflict of interest?

    Any time any of those animal groups are involved, the devil will be in the details, of course.

    That is why so many fought the ill-drafted "ban horse slaughter bill" of 2007, didn't make any sense as written and would have easily been used to stop most anything else we do with horses.
    All the money and influence the HSUS threw at it was not enough to get it passed, it was so bad and non-sensical.

    The same with most any other those groups present, thankfully, so clear heads easily prevail.
    Bluey, who told you "animal extremists " are making any rules ? The above amendment to California law are sensible. I think that tin foil hat needs to be recyled by some of you. Animal laws are written by many people not "animal extremists".

    Seems to me the new rules are aiming at making animal owners more responsible for their animal's welfare instead of having the tax payer pick up the bills. Seems that someone advocating for less government spending would support those changes.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,077

    Default

    So if an agent of whatever A/C, police, independent shelter personnel, whoever decides to seize (your) animal, You are OK with

    1. them being the sole decision makers as to whether they should have seized the animal, knowing if they found the seizure unwarranted they would be charging themselves with the bill -that is laughable, no?
    2. having them charge you for treatment, housing, etc that they deem necessary and at whatever rate they choose to set?
    3. Having 14 days from seizure date to pay up the entire bill or your animal is forfeit?
    This regardless of whether seizure is warranted or not.

    Even California judges do not appreciate the end run around the justice system this represents.


    My, my.

    Do you believe in animal ownership at all?


    4 members found this post helpful.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2005
    Location
    Some where in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    I think the loop hole that involves non trained animal professionals certainly could complicate things. How many regular law enforcement agents or even A/C agents have gratuitous amounts of equine experience ?

    What happens when one misdiagnoses "suffering" and puts a bullet in your pony with a treatable ailment ?

    Quite frankly the first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best. Including a loose horse that slipped on a sidewalk went over backwards and was convulsing in the street with her brains oozing out while they stood around and watched. They were "helping" catch her by playing round up with ATV's. The very distraught owner finally had to beg one of them to shoot her it took 3 shots ... real marksmen they were.
    Last edited by Lynnwood; Feb. 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM.
    "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,894

    Default

    I have made my assessments of the amendments, I guess it got a bit boring on the pro-carriage thread so I see many of the pro-carriage members threatening that "they will come after your pleasure horses" with yet another bit of legislation. I think the pro-carriage members want everyone to believe that every time the government enacts or proposes new regulations PETA & HSUS seek to come after your animals.

    News flash pro-carriage people, government makes laws, ordinances and rules that effect your animals, but it does NOT mean that PETA or HSUS are coming after your animals.

    For goodness sakes, I am amazed at the lack of realistic perception of the tin foil hat brigade on here.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2005
    Location
    Some where in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Oh dear lord and now because any of us who support carriage horses dare to speak ......it becomes about them.

    SV did I say a word about anyone coming for any animals ?? I'm fairly certain I said this legislation:
    "..
    (b) Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a
    dog or cat, that is abandoned in any city, county, city and county,
    or judicial district may be killed humanely euthanized by the officer
    if, after a reasonable search, no owner of the animal can be found."

    Could get complicated and has the potential to be ugly.
    "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D_BaldStockings View Post
    So if an agent of whatever A/C, police, independent shelter personnel, whoever decides to seize (your) animal, You are OK with

    1. them being the sole decision makers as to whether they should have seized the animal, knowing if they found the seizure unwarranted they would be charging themselves with the bill -that is laughable, no?
    2. having them charge you for treatment, housing, etc that they deem necessary and at whatever rate they choose to set?
    3. Having 14 days from seizure date to pay up the entire bill or your animal is forfeit?
    This regardless of whether seizure is warranted or not.

    Even California judges do not appreciate the end run around the justice system this represents.


    My, my.

    Do you believe in animal ownership at all?
    and hearing themselves if the actions were justified....
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnwood View Post
    I think the loop hole that involves non trained animal professionals certainly could complicate things. How many regular law enforcement agents or even A/C agents have gratuitous amounts of equine experience ?

    What happens when one misdiagnoses "suffering" and puts a bullet in your pony with a treatable ailment ?

    Quite frankly the first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best. Including a loose horse that slipped on a sidewalk went over backwards and was convulsing in the street with her brains oozing out while they stood around and watched. They were "helping" catch her by playing round up with ATV's. The very distraught owner finally had to beg one of them to shoot her it took 3 shots ... real marksmen they were.
    No this is what you posted. which has some horror story of "first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best". Just more drama on the PETA HSUS front from you.

    I pay to have both my horses boarded at a stable that would handle any emergency if I was not available as they saw fit. I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.

    Really, your dramatic post is over the top, as usual.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,894

    Default

    Oh, I see the entire pro-carriage party has joined this thread. Welcome, let's now see the drama and the PETA HSUS bashing.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2005
    Location
    Some where in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    No this is what you posted. which has some horror story of "first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best". Just more drama on the PETA HSUS front from you.

    I pay to have both my horses boarded at a stable that would handle any emergency if I was not available as they saw fit. I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.

    Really, your dramatic post is over the top, as usual.
    never mentioned PETA or the HSUS.

    Since you were not there to watch untrained officers try to make choices and handle the situation I have to just sum up your remarks to ignorance.

    Its nice that you pay to have your animals "boarded". Unless there is someone on the property 24/7 situations happen. I honestly hope your horses never find themselves in that type of circumstance. Based on the quote below when it happens I hope the persons around them are more compassionate then you.

    I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.
    That is the most telling statement you have ever made. Thanks for showing your hand.
    "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"


    4 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    No this is what you posted. which has some horror story of "first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best". Just more drama on the PETA HSUS front from you.

    I pay to have both my horses boarded at a stable that would handle any emergency if I was not available as they saw fit. I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.

    Really, your dramatic post is over the top, as usual.

    No, Dear.
    Us tinfoil hatters have known for quiet sometime now that HSUS - the PETA with suits, remember - has made great progress in training AC officer all over the country.

    Now, In Mayfield, you might be right, no boarded horse will ever get loose, and hurt while on the lamb.

    In other places, with less perfect people, the manure does occasional hit the fan.

    And here a little example on what can happen when the AC officer has it in for you:
    http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=277091

    Oh my carriage horses....
    At least this one had a happy ending - for the owner......

    Then of course there is the Basset pack that was decimated by an over zealous AC bunch...irreparable damages...

    And there is always the possibility that somebody who does not like you does something to your animals.
    I know, ridiculous....who could possibly not like you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnwood View Post
    never mentioned PETA or the HSUS.

    Since you were not there to watch untrained officers try to make choices and handle the situation I have to just sum up your remarks to ignorance.

    Its nice that you pay to have your animals "boarded". Unless there is someone on the property 24/7 situations happen. I honestly hope your horses never find themselves in that type of circumstance. Based on the quote below when it happens I hope the persons around them are more compassionate then you.



    That is the most telling statement you have ever made. Thanks for showing your hand.
    So, are you Lynnwood advocating that additional taxes be paid by citizens to pay for animals picked up and treated by the local government ? That is the jest of the amendments, making owners responsible for the seizure, care of their animals. Also, allowing officers on duty to handle these cases instead of having specialized animal caregivers and judges responsible. Oh, that's right you don't live in this state and have NO vested interest.

    Love the sentiments of someone who can say that "others should be made to pay for the care of aniamls they don't own". Responsible pet ownership is what is in the bill, really horrific for some of you. I am astounded at the complete lack of responsible responses from the pro-carriage people on basic regulations. It is all for drama for you.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2005
    Location
    Some where in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Oh SV so now we can't post or have an opinion because we don't live in CA. You're right legislation made in one state never becomes law else where.

    Are you going to pay for the on duty officers to have specialized training in large animal handling , medical and crisis situations?

    I don't think I breached the subject at all about the rest of the regulation. I was speaking about issues with having non animal trained officers shouldering responsibilities they are not trained for.

    I have NO issue that owners should be responsible for the costs associated with seizure and care of their animals if they are found guilty of a crime, that would include animals at large.

    Your childish grudge against anyone who has spoken in support of carriage horses is getting old.
    "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"


    2 members found this post helpful.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    So, are you Lynnwood advocating that additional taxes be paid by citizens to pay for animals picked up and treated by the local government ? That is the jest of the amendments, making owners responsible for the seizure, care of their animals. Also, allowing officers on duty to handle these cases instead of having specialized animal caregivers and judges responsible. Oh, that's right you don't live in this state and have NO vested interest.

    Love the sentiments of someone who can say that "others should be made to pay for the care of aniamls they don't own". Responsible pet ownership is what is in the bill, really horrific for some of you. I am astounded at the complete lack of responsible responses from the pro-carriage people on basic regulations. It is all for drama for you.
    comprehension is really not your strong suit.

    No, the problem as it is presented is not the billing, at least not in the top spot.

    The AC officer (for brevity sakes) is the sole and only entity in this spiel: gets to decide - on his/her own - if the animal is so gravely ill that it can't be treated.
    Then he/she picks the vet - if applicable - or kills it outright.

    THEN the AC office hears your case, the same people who acted in the case.
    Normally you would expect an impartial judge or mediator.

    And it seems that if you found guilty in this kangaroo court, you lose all your other animals as well - and can't own any for 5 years, not be around them...
    accuser, judge and hangman. Streamlined proceedings....

    And you are stuck with the bill.

    Now, we have heard the lovley stories of vets who give you the hairy eyeball if you don't run that 13 year old lab through chemo and radiation when the cancer is already everywhere....not to mention those who quadruple their rates because it's 18:01
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,894

    Default

    Alagirl, how many horses do you have ? Do you Alagirl have any horses that may be impacted by this bill ?

    I have two horses. What say you ?

    I just realized that I have never read posts by you of your horses. Do you show ? event ? drive carriages ? or just trail ride your horses ?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2005
    Location
    Some where in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    Alagirl, how many horses do you have ? Do you Alagirl have any horses that may be impacted by this bill ?

    I have two horses. What say you ?

    I just realized that I have never read posts by you of your horses. Do you show ? event ? drive carriages ? or just trail ride your horses ?
    She has one horse in CA and its name is Legal Precedent
    "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb. 20, 2010
    Location
    All 'round Canadia
    Posts
    4,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnwood View Post
    Oh dear lord and now because any of us who support carriage horses dare to speak ......it becomes about them.

    SV did I say a word about anyone coming for any animals ?? I'm fairly certain I said this legislation:
    "..
    (b) Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a
    dog or cat, that is abandoned in any city, county, city and county,
    or judicial district may be killed humanely euthanized by the officer
    if, after a reasonable search, no owner of the animal can be found."

    Could get complicated and has the potential to be ugly.
    This actually sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Should they be warehousing and treating these sick abandoned animals at public expense forever? I mean, if your horse gets out you're probably calling everywhere and looking for it, not sitting on your ass waiting to maybe be found as its owner, so you should be perfectly safe with the "reasonable search" proviso.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,104

    Default

    Seems that we have some posters that are still utterly clueless about who animal rights extremist groups are.
    This may help enlighten them, if they take the time to read thru these pages and be astounded, amazed and if smart enough, alarmed about who those groups are and how they attack our owning and using animals on so many fronts, while lining their pockets all along:

    http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

    ---"Overview
    The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth."---

    http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=6510

    Remember, we are answering here a poster that said her HSUS shelter was where she got her dog.

    That kind of misinformation is how the HSUS can trick people into thinking they are this wonderful organization that cares so much for poor abandoned animals and hide their real decades long goal of eliminating eventually all uses of animals by humans and yes, horses too.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb. 20, 2010
    Location
    All 'round Canadia
    Posts
    4,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Seems that we have some posters that are still utterly clueless about who animal rights extremist groups are.
    This may help enlighten them, if they take the time to read thru these pages and be astounded, amazed and if smart enough, alarmed about who those groups are and how they attack our owning and using animals on so many fronts, while lining their pockets all along:

    http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/
    Bluey, is every piece of legislation aimed at animals part of this "long game" that RARA's are playing? Because that's the impression I get from the Tinhatters here. Even if a piece of legislation is posted that seems utterly reasonably to the vast majority of the non-RARA posters here on COTH, there'll be a vocal minority claiming that it is just a tiny step in the RARA game for the ultimate goal.

    It would seem that any and all animal welfare, animal control, etc legislation is part of that ultimate goal. Would that be correct? Or could you point out some laws that you consider free of such influence?


    4 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Animal rights group targets proposed racino
    By michaleenflynn in forum Racing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Nov. 1, 2011, 08:40 PM
  2. Animal rights gone wild?
    By tkhawk in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Apr. 8, 2010, 06:11 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Sep. 15, 2009, 05:32 PM
  4. Justice? If the animal rights people get their way.
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: May. 28, 2009, 10:21 AM
  5. Animal rights VS. Animal welfare
    By IveGotRhythm in forum Off Course
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: Jun. 11, 2008, 12:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness