September 20, 2013 at 9:23 am
Jeff Moden (9/20/2013)
Are you good folks saying that any form of SELECT/INTO is bad? If so, why?
I don't think select into is always bad; I do think that it often is bad - that it is often used when it shouldn't be. I often don't like it when it's used to create an ordinary (ie not temporary) table unless there's an obvious reason for it which is made clear by the name of the new table (for example it's OK for creating a backup of the data in a table before adding/removing/deleting things so that just these changes can be reversed next week if they turn out to be a mistake, without rolling back the whole database). And generally I don't like to see it used with just * as the select list because I think select * is the right thing to use in production code only in fairly rare circumstances, and combining it with select into is combining two things each of which is often misused, so it's probable that the combination is an example of misuse - of course there are exceptions, but most times I've seen SELECT * INTO in production code it's either caused bugs or been part of a generally sloppy style of coding.
But talking of code I don't like, I saw something I liked even less yesterday (on SSCentral):
select ...
from Table1 T left join Table2 U on T.someid = U.someid
where U.someID in (select someID from T)
which, assuming ANSI_NULLS is ON, is a rather silly way of writing an inner join. With ANSI_NULLS off, if there's a NULL in column T1.someid the where clause does does nothing, so it's a (non-ansi, as it will match NULLs) left join; if T1.someid doesn't have a NULL in it, it produces the same as would an inner join, just as in the ANSI_NULLS ON case. Of course all that depends on the WHERE clause being applied after the join, not before, but I think that's safe; if it wasn't safe, I would like that code even less, as its results might suddenly change any time.
Tom
September 20, 2013 at 9:37 am
L' Eomot Inversé (9/20/2013)
But talking of code I don't like, I saw something I liked even less yesterday (on SSCentral):
select ...
from Table1 T left join Table2 U on T.someid = U.someid
where U.someID in (select someID from T)
which, assuming ANSI_NULLS is ON, is a rather silly way of writing an inner join. With ANSI_NULLS off, if there's a NULL in column T1.someid the where clause does does nothing, so it's a (non-ansi, as it will match NULLs) left join; if T1.someid doesn't have a NULL in it, it produces the same as would an inner join, just as in the ANSI_NULLS ON case. Of course all that depends on the WHERE clause being applied after the join, not before, but I think that's safe; if it wasn't safe, I would like that code even less, as its results might suddenly change any time.
WOW!!! Clearly somebody does not have even a basic understanding of joins here. That is really frightening.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
September 20, 2013 at 10:18 am
*Huff* *Wheeze* I... I did it! I managed to read the entirety of The Thread! That was... Interesting :-D. Been lurking around here, being generally amazed at the questions posted and everyone's unwavering insistence on being helpful despite the odds. The community here is great indeed.
I may chime in here a bit here and there, if you all won't mind, and if the rollercoaster of subjects strikes my fancy. Hopefully I won't eat a high-velocity pork chop or two in the near future 🙂
- 😀
September 20, 2013 at 10:43 am
hisakimatama (9/20/2013)
*Huff* *Wheeze* I... I did it! I managed to read the entirety of The Thread! That was... Interesting :-D. Been lurking around here, being generally amazed at the questions posted and everyone's unwavering insistence on being helpful despite the odds. The community here is great indeed.I may chime in here a bit here and there, if you all won't mind, and if the rollercoaster of subjects strikes my fancy. Hopefully I won't eat a high-velocity pork chop or two in the near future 🙂
Ha! Welcome to the water cooler.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
September 20, 2013 at 11:17 am
Ed Wagner (9/20/2013)
Greg Edwards-268690 (9/20/2013)
Ed Wagner (9/20/2013)
jasona.work (9/20/2013)
On an unrelated note, so much fun working for government...When said govm't seems heck-bent on going into shutdown, potentially leaving one payless for who knows how long...
Yeah, but government "shutting down" isn't really shutting down in the strict sense of the phrase. The work still needs to get done and when this has happened in the past, retroactive pay has been given every time. I have a friend who's worked for the VA for a long time and he's seen this several times. He's not worried. The government will still pay employees, social security, medicare and defense spending. They'll still collect taxes from everyone, pay the military and pay themselves. Their goal is only to inconvenience lots of people and then get on TV and spew the rhetoric to make the other party look bad. It's a sad situation, which is why I try to avoid political situations as much as possible.
I know it can be stressful to government employees, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. Like I said, my friend who works at the VA has been through it before and he's not worried.
Still a headache.
Just wish they could bury the egos and get the job done.
Special Session equates to Extra Pay to many of them.
Greg - I think you hit the nail on the head there. No matter what party they're in, most of them are out for themselves. They may go into politics with the most altruistic and noble intentions, but all that power corrupts people and it's very sad. My heart definitely goes out to the people who actually do the work and have uncertainty in their lives because of the politicians' games and political posturing.
Since I don't want fuel a precipitate rush into the conversational minefield of politics, I wish to note at the outset that I am intentionally commenting in only a general sense and do not intend to make insinuations for or against any particular person or group.
The political climate in the United States historically has fallen on a spectrum from vituperative hostility to collegial cooperation. We seem to be much nearer the hostile end of this spectrum at the moment. Too many of us, not just politicians but citizens also, seem too willing to sacrifice the common good on the altars of ideology and self-interest, holding obstinately to whatever positions best serve those ends, no matter how extreme.
Our system of government is designed to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", deriving its authority from the consent and will of the citizens. In recognition of an unfortunate human tendency, our system of government includes institutions and processes that protect us against a tyranny of the majority. These institutions and processes are powerful tools, and like many tools, they can become weapons of destruction if used injudiciously and not accorded proper respect of their power. Unfortunately for our country, too many of us today wield those tools indiscriminately in pursuit of political advantage without regard to the resulting damage.
The filibuster provides a good example of the power of these tools and the consequences of their misuse. The filibuster grants significant power to the minority in the legislative process, allowing them to defeat the majority's efforts to pass legislation. A proper respect for that power imposes obligations on both the minority and the majority, lest it get out of hand and wreak havoc. The minority should use it prudently, fairly considering the benefit of majority's proposed policy, and with restraint, employing it only when the proposed policy would truly oppress its constituency. The majority, when faced with a filibuster, should oppose it prudently, fairly considering the minority's objections to the proposed policy and respecting that these objections are substantial enough to merit the minority's use of the filibuster to voice them. Recently, though, we've seen politicians, supported by vocal constituencies, both filibustering as just one more way to thwart the majority's agenda and defeating filibusters by the application of sheer political force without regard for policy concerns. The result seems to be either a hegemony (if not quite a tyranny) of the majority, creating opportunity for abuse of political power, or a deadlock, rendering the government incapable of action on serious policy issues.
The only reason my frustration with this state of affairs has not reduced me to continuous foaming-at-the-mouth ranting is a recognition that we as a nation have been here before and we will not be here forever. I see signs that some elected officials still understand that policy proposals should be intended to promote the common good rather than aimed at conferring advantage or disadvantage on only a part of the populace, that opposition to policy proposals should be honest and rational rather than disingenuous and dogmatic, that such opposition should be accorded due respect in the legislative process, and that seeking and building consensus, or at least palatable compromise, generally maximizes the common good. We will sooner or later realize that merely shouting at each other across a political divide, with the dominant characteristic of our positions being the vehemence with which we hold to them, usually hinders rather than helps our pursuit of the stated goals of our government. When that occurs, the political climate will shift towards the collegial, cooperative end of the spectrum once again.
Jason Wolfkill
September 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm
hisakimatama (9/20/2013)
*Huff* *Wheeze* I... I did it! I managed to read the entirety of The Thread! That was... Interesting :-D. Been lurking around here, being generally amazed at the questions posted and everyone's unwavering insistence on being helpful despite the odds. The community here is great indeed.I may chime in here a bit here and there, if you all won't mind, and if the rollercoaster of subjects strikes my fancy. Hopefully I won't eat a high-velocity pork chop or two in the near future 🙂
Anyone that understands the impact (no pun intended) of high-velocity pork chops is certainly welcome to the proverbial water cooler. Welcome aboard! 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 20, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Jeff Moden (9/20/2013)
hisakimatama (9/20/2013)
*Huff* *Wheeze* I... I did it! I managed to read the entirety of The Thread! That was... Interesting :-D. Been lurking around here, being generally amazed at the questions posted and everyone's unwavering insistence on being helpful despite the odds. The community here is great indeed.I may chime in here a bit here and there, if you all won't mind, and if the rollercoaster of subjects strikes my fancy. Hopefully I won't eat a high-velocity pork chop or two in the near future 🙂
Anyone that understands the impact (no pun intended) of high-velocity pork chops is certainly welcome to the proverbial water cooler. Welcome aboard! 🙂
I have been gone for a while but am now coming back in a time of crisis. One of my developers looks to have nuked a third party vendor application with some front end changes that are stored in the DB and i may have to fix it with a restore from last nights backup. Good news is i think i can fix it.
Jeff can i borrow your pork chop cannon?
For performance Issues see how we like them posted here: How to Post Performance Problems - Gail Shaw[/url]
Need to Split some strings? Jeff Moden's DelimitedSplit8K[/url]
Jeff Moden's Cross tab and Pivots Part 1[/url]
Jeff Moden's Cross tab and Pivots Part 2[/url]
September 20, 2013 at 2:05 pm
hisakimatama (9/20/2013)
*Huff* *Wheeze* I... I did it! I managed to read the entirety of The Thread! That was... Interesting :-D. Been lurking around here, being generally amazed at the questions posted and everyone's unwavering insistence on being helpful despite the odds. The community here is great indeed.I may chime in here a bit here and there, if you all won't mind, and if the rollercoaster of subjects strikes my fancy. Hopefully I won't eat a high-velocity pork chop or two in the near future 🙂
Wow! I'm impressed! Took me about 2 months to catch up when the number of posts was sitting at about 20000. Welcome to the water cooler, you deserve it!
September 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
... The filibuster ...
I don't think I'm the lone non-US citizen who doesn't quite understand what the Filibuster is all about. The way I understand it is that some Representative keeps on talking (without sitting down) about one or other topic that's up for a vote in the House in order to make sure that the bill in question isn't put up for a vote within a certain allotted time. Am I right?
September 20, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Jan Van der Eecken (9/20/2013)
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
... The filibuster ...I don't think I'm the lone non-US citizen who doesn't quite understand what the Filibuster is all about. The way I understand it is that some Representative keeps on talking (without sitting down) about one or other topic that's up for a vote in the House in order to make sure that the bill in question isn't put up for a vote within a certain allotted time. Am I right?
That is pretty much it. In the US it is only allowed in the Senate. The House has a permanent rule that limits the length of discussion. The Senate however allows for a senator to speak for as long as they wish (about any topic). The only way to avoid a fillibuster is with cloture. I don't remember the numbers but something like 60% of those present have to vote to end the discussion.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
September 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Jan Van der Eecken (9/20/2013)
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
... The filibuster ...I don't think I'm the lone non-US citizen who doesn't quite understand what the Filibuster is all about. The way I understand it is that some Representative keeps on talking (without sitting down) about one or other topic that's up for a vote in the House in order to make sure that the bill in question isn't put up for a vote within a certain allotted time. Am I right?
The filibuster tactic arises out of the parliamentary procedures followed in the US Senate. The Senate prides itself on its role as a "deliberative body" - a forum in which proposed legislation and policies will be thoroughly vetted. The Senate rules thus provide that generally, once a senator has the floor, he can speak as long as he wants about anything he wants until he yields the floor, as long as he abides by the rules applicable to a senator who has the floor. The rules define what actions other than stating that one yields the floor will effectively yield the floor. Leaving the chamber definitely does it, and leaving the well of the Senate floor (the area at the front where senators stand when addressing the Senate) or not speaking for some period of time does too, I think.
Invoking cloture is one of a very few ways to wrest the floor from a senator who does not yield (senators can also raise points of order to argue that the filibustering senator has done something which constitutes yielding the floor - more on this below). Cloture is essentially a motion to close debate on the issue presently before the body. A motion for cloture requires a three-fifths supermajority vote to pass - 60 out of 100 senators. Presently, the rule provides that 16 senators must join a petition to invoke cloture and present it to the presiding senator by interrupting the senator with the floor. Then, there's a whole set of procedures that will be followed leading up to the vote on cloture.
The ability to hold the floor indefinitely gives rise to the filibuster. Essentially, a senator commences a filibuster to forestall a vote on a measure that he and at least 40 other senators oppose. It's usually an attempt by the minority to force the majority into a compromise since other business cannot be taken up until the filibustering senator yields the floor. Since the rules don't limit debate to only the measure under consideration, senators have done things like reading from the phone book to keep their mouths moving to hold the floor.
A recent filibuster in the Texas state senate drew much media attention. The Texas senate rules provide that a member addressing the floor must remain standing *unaided* within a small distance of his desk (three feet or so, I think). Under the rules, the term "standing unaided" means not leaning on anything or receiving assistance from another person. A filibustering member gets two warnings for violating the rules - a third violation results in the senator losing the floor. The majority party ended this filibuster by successfully raising three points of order to call out violations of the rules by the filibustering senator. The second, and most memorable to me, resulted in an extended debate about whether another senator gave assistance to the filibustering member when he helped her don a back support belt. The filibustering member stops speaking during debate on the point of order but has to follow all the other rules, including remaining standing.
Jason Wolfkill
September 20, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Sean Lange (9/20/2013)
Jan Van der Eecken (9/20/2013)
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
... The filibuster ...I don't think I'm the lone non-US citizen who doesn't quite understand what the Filibuster is all about. The way I understand it is that some Representative keeps on talking (without sitting down) about one or other topic that's up for a vote in the House in order to make sure that the bill in question isn't put up for a vote within a certain allotted time. Am I right?
That is pretty much it. In the US it is only allowed in the Senate. The House has a permanent rule that limits the length of discussion. The Senate however allows for a senator to speak for as long as they wish (about any topic). The only way to avoid a fillibuster is with cloture. I don't remember the numbers but something like 60% of those present have to vote to end the discussion.
Thanks for the clarification, Sean. Didn't know it only applied to the Senate. But the "any" topic seems a bit overboard. This would mean that a Senator could sing about the birds and the bees forever (assuming he/she has a good voice and doesn't drive his/her fellow 99 members out of the room) even when what he/she talks about has no bearing on the vote that's up for consideration. Or am I wrong there?
September 20, 2013 at 2:46 pm
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
Jan Van der Eecken (9/20/2013)
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
... The filibuster ...I don't think I'm the lone non-US citizen who doesn't quite understand what the Filibuster is all about. The way I understand it is that some Representative keeps on talking (without sitting down) about one or other topic that's up for a vote in the House in order to make sure that the bill in question isn't put up for a vote within a certain allotted time. Am I right?
The filibuster tactic arises out of the parliamentary procedures followed in the US Senate. The Senate prides itself on its role as a "deliberative body" - a forum in which proposed legislation and policies will be thoroughly vetted. The Senate rules thus provide that generally, once a senator has the floor, he can speak as long as he wants about anything he wants until he yields the floor, as long as he abides by the rules applicable to a senator who has the floor. The rules define what actions other than stating that one yields the floor will effectively yield the floor. Leaving the chamber definitely does it, and leaving the well of the Senate floor (the area at the front where senators stand when addressing the Senate) or not speaking for some period of time does too, I think.
Invoking cloture is one of a very few ways to wrest the floor from a senator who does not yield (senators can also raise points of order to argue that the filibustering senator has done something which constitutes yielding the floor - more on this below). Cloture is essentially a motion to close debate on the issue presently before the body. A motion for cloture requires a three-fifths supermajority vote to pass - 60 out of 100 senators. Presently, the rule provides that 16 senators must join a petition to invoke cloture and present it to the presiding senator by interrupting the senator with the floor. Then, there's a whole set of procedures that will be followed leading up to the vote on cloture.
The ability to hold the floor indefinitely gives rise to the filibuster. Essentially, a senator commences a filibuster to forestall a vote on a measure that he and at least 40 other senators oppose. It's usually an attempt by the minority to force the majority into a compromise since other business cannot be taken up until the filibustering senator yields the floor. Since the rules don't limit debate to only the measure under consideration, senators have done things like reading from the phone book to keep their mouths moving to hold the floor.
A recent filibuster in the Texas state senate drew much media attention. The Texas senate rules provide that a member addressing the floor must remain standing *unaided* within a small distance of his desk (three feet or so, I think). Under the rules, the term "standing unaided" means not leaning on anything or receiving assistance from another person. A filibustering member gets two warnings for violating the rules - a third violation results in the senator losing the floor. The majority party ended this filibuster by successfully raising three points of order to call out violations of the rules by the filibustering senator. The second, and most memorable to me, resulted in an extended debate about whether another senator gave assistance to the filibustering member when he helped her don a back support belt. The filibustering member stops speaking during debate on the point of order but has to follow all the other rules, including remaining standing.
Oh, and more about the US Senate filibuster -
In recent years, the Senate has informally allowed a senator's declaration of intent to filibuster to function as an actual filibuster without the senator actually obtaining and holding the floor. Essentially, stating that one will filibuster a bill gives rise to the requirement of a vote on cloture on a matter that comes before the senate even though the filibustering senator does not take the floor. The number of "filibusters" has risen dramatically in recent years because of this policy. As the US legislature has become nearly paralyzed with partisan differences, this has prompted some to call for a return to strict enforcement of the rules by requiring a senator who wishes to filibuster to actually take and hold the floor.
Sorry, Jan, but you *did* ask . . .
Jason Wolfkill
September 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Jan Van der Eecken (9/20/2013)
Sean Lange (9/20/2013)
Jan Van der Eecken (9/20/2013)
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
... The filibuster ...I don't think I'm the lone non-US citizen who doesn't quite understand what the Filibuster is all about. The way I understand it is that some Representative keeps on talking (without sitting down) about one or other topic that's up for a vote in the House in order to make sure that the bill in question isn't put up for a vote within a certain allotted time. Am I right?
That is pretty much it. In the US it is only allowed in the Senate. The House has a permanent rule that limits the length of discussion. The Senate however allows for a senator to speak for as long as they wish (about any topic). The only way to avoid a fillibuster is with cloture. I don't remember the numbers but something like 60% of those present have to vote to end the discussion.
Thanks for the clarification, Sean. Didn't know it only applied to the Senate. But the "any" topic seems a bit overboard. This would mean that a Senator could sing about the birds and the bees forever (assuming he/she has a good voice and doesn't drive his/her fellow 99 members out of the room) even when what he/she talks about has no bearing on the vote that's up for consideration. Or am I wrong there?
"Any topic" really means "any topic". Senator Huey Long famously recited Shakespeare and read recipes for "pot likker" during a filibuster.
Just in case you're curious, "pot likker" or "pot liquor" is the water that remains after boiling greens (like turnip greens or collard greens). It has a slight greenish cast and takes on a mild flavor from the greens. It's a key part of the historic/traditional regional cuisine of the southeastern US. It's usually served with cornbread, which is either dipped into the pot liquor or dropped into it and eaten with a spoon after it has absorbed the pot liquor.
Jason Wolfkill
September 20, 2013 at 2:52 pm
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
Jan Van der Eecken (9/20/2013)
wolfkillj (9/20/2013)
... The filibuster ...I don't think I'm the lone non-US citizen who doesn't quite understand what the Filibuster is all about. The way I understand it is that some Representative keeps on talking (without sitting down) about one or other topic that's up for a vote in the House in order to make sure that the bill in question isn't put up for a vote within a certain allotted time. Am I right?
The filibuster tactic arises out of the parliamentary procedures followed in the US Senate. The Senate prides itself on its role as a "deliberative body" - a forum in which proposed legislation and policies will be thoroughly vetted. The Senate rules thus provide that generally, once a senator has the floor, he can speak as long as he wants about anything he wants until he yields the floor, as long as he abides by the rules applicable to a senator who has the floor. The rules define what actions other than stating that one yields the floor will effectively yield the floor. Leaving the chamber definitely does it, and leaving the well of the Senate floor (the area at the front where senators stand when addressing the Senate) or not speaking for some period of time does too, I think.
Invoking cloture is one of a very few ways to wrest the floor from a senator who does not yield (senators can also raise points of order to argue that the filibustering senator has done something which constitutes yielding the floor - more on this below). Cloture is essentially a motion to close debate on the issue presently before the body. A motion for cloture requires a three-fifths supermajority vote to pass - 60 out of 100 senators. Presently, the rule provides that 16 senators must join a petition to invoke cloture and present it to the presiding senator by interrupting the senator with the floor. Then, there's a whole set of procedures that will be followed leading up to the vote on cloture.
The ability to hold the floor indefinitely gives rise to the filibuster. Essentially, a senator commences a filibuster to forestall a vote on a measure that he and at least 40 other senators oppose. It's usually an attempt by the minority to force the majority into a compromise since other business cannot be taken up until the filibustering senator yields the floor. Since the rules don't limit debate to only the measure under consideration, senators have done things like reading from the phone book to keep their mouths moving to hold the floor.
A recent filibuster in the Texas state senate drew much media attention. The Texas senate rules provide that a member addressing the floor must remain standing *unaided* within a small distance of his desk (three feet or so, I think). Under the rules, the term "standing unaided" means not leaning on anything or receiving assistance from another person. A filibustering member gets two warnings for violating the rules - a third violation results in the senator losing the floor. The majority party ended this filibuster by successfully raising three points of order to call out violations of the rules by the filibustering senator. The second, and most memorable to me, resulted in an extended debate about whether another senator gave assistance to the filibustering member when he helped her don a back support belt. The filibustering member stops speaking during debate on the point of order but has to follow all the other rules, including remaining standing.
Oh, and more about the US Senate filibuster -
In recent years, the Senate has informally allowed a senator's declaration of intent to filibuster to function as an actual filibuster without the senator actually obtaining and holding the floor. Essentially, stating that one will filibuster a bill gives rise to the requirement of a vote on cloture on a matter that comes before the senate even though the filibustering senator does not take the floor. The number of "filibusters" has risen dramatically in recent years because of this policy. As the US legislature has become nearly paralyzed with partisan differences, this has prompted some to call for a return to strict enforcement of the rules by requiring a senator who wishes to filibuster to actually take and hold the floor.
Sorry, Jan, but you *did* ask . . .
Hey, no problem! Thanks for enlightening me and the other non-US-ers. Somehow I thought our Parliamentary rules in SA were sometimes quite (not so) funny, but this really beats it.
Viewing 15 posts - 41,326 through 41,340 (of 66,559 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply