HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do the English think of t...

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:31 PM

Do the English think of themselves as God's blessing to mankind? I ask this question because

recently an American tennis fan congratulated an Englishman when finally a Briton, Andy Murray,
had won the Wimbledon championship for the first time in 75 years! Do you know what the
the Englishman said? His reply was, "Yes ..... but he is not English!" Andy Murray is Scotch. I
suppose the Englishman looked upon him as a "colonial." He and too many Englishmen still have
the mentality of people from the 18th and 19the centuries, still thinking in terms of
"pure Englishmen" and "colonials."

Can you imagine the subtle, not-so-subtle, and blatantly open snubs and put-downs still going on
in the social and business worlds of the UK today? And among "pure Englishmen" themselves,
their society is still being separated by barriers according to class from the blue-blooded nobility to
the city slum dwellers. And today, the situation is complicated by the large numbers of non-white
immigrants from the far-flung countries of their former world-wide empire.

Can you blame the Scots for wanting to secede from the UK?

Let's take a closer look at what a "pure Englishman" is. The first known settlers in England
probably were the Celts. Around 400 BC, the ancient Romans conquered and colonized
"Britannia," as they called that land, and they stayed there for 4 centuries. And Roman armies
were known to have Nubian soldiers. Nubians were black Africans. So, there was already a
mixture of some Italian and a little of black African genes in their ancestry even before the
Christian Era.

The Viking pirates had been raiding the coasts of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales also for
centuries.

In the 5th and 6th Centuries A.D. there was a heavy influx of the Angles and Saxons into
England. These were Germanic tribes, and many of them were fleeing from the Huns (an
Asian tribe) who had conquered much of Germany at that time. The Anglo-Saxons warred
with the Celts, who retreated further west into Wales and Ireland, and north into Scotland.

In 1066 William the Conqueror from Normandy, France, conquered the land and became the
King of England. His descendants (among whom was Richard the Lion-Hearted of the
Crusades fame). The Plantagenets remained for 200 years, and French was the spoken language
at the English Court. And the Normans despised their defeated subjects, the Anglo-Saxons.

The English language we have today is a mixture of Celtic, Latin, Scandinavian, German and
French. There may be others that I have missed.

The "pure Englishman?" Hah! They're deluding themselves. There is no pure anything. There
never was.

I wish the Scotch people good luck, whatever results from their present problems with
the "pure English."

49 replies, 2164 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do the English think of themselves as God's blessing to mankind? I ask this question because (Original post)
Cal33 Aug 2013 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2013 #1
razorman Aug 2013 #31
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #2
cyberswede Aug 2013 #4
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #6
Cal33 Aug 2013 #10
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #11
Cal33 Aug 2013 #15
CTyankee Aug 2013 #17
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #19
CTyankee Aug 2013 #20
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #22
CTyankee Aug 2013 #23
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #25
CTyankee Aug 2013 #36
Cal33 Aug 2013 #37
CTyankee Aug 2013 #39
kiva Aug 2013 #27
NightWatcher Aug 2013 #3
eShirl Aug 2013 #33
truebrit71 Aug 2013 #5
babylonsister Aug 2013 #28
Cal33 Aug 2013 #41
truebrit71 Aug 2013 #42
Cal33 Aug 2013 #44
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #45
Cal33 Aug 2013 #46
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #49
LittleBlue Aug 2013 #7
aquart Aug 2013 #8
Shrike47 Aug 2013 #9
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2013 #12
RB TexLa Aug 2013 #13
Populist_Prole Aug 2013 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2013 #34
olddots Aug 2013 #16
Codeine Aug 2013 #18
Cal33 Aug 2013 #21
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #24
Boudica the Lyoness Aug 2013 #29
Codeine Aug 2013 #30
mr blur Aug 2013 #38
Cal33 Aug 2013 #40
Dawson Leery Aug 2013 #26
Skittles Aug 2013 #32
UTUSN Aug 2013 #35
dipsydoodle Aug 2013 #43
Posteritatis Aug 2013 #47
Cal33 Aug 2013 #48

Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:44 PM

1. Possibly; but so do many Americans.

Just ask any teabagger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:37 PM

31. I am reminded of a scene in the movie, "The Man Who Would Be King",

in which Sean Connery and Michael Caine play two 19th century English adventurers who trek to the frontiers of northern India to conquer a backwater area and make themselves kings. Upon arriving at one fortified village, and chasing away some attacking tribesmen, they are asked, "Are you gods?" Their reply is, "No, we're Englishmen, the next best thing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:45 PM

2. That's quite a lot you've tried to infer from one sentence, with little context

You don't say, for instance, if the American had been referring to the Englishman as 'English' - in which case it would only be proper to point out that Murray is Scottish (not 'Scotch', please - that's for whisky, mist and eggs). The Scots are rightfully proud of Murray (and Murray is proudly Scottish - for instance he joked he would "support whoever England were playing against" in the football World Cup), and often don't like English people claiming him as British, rather than Scottish.

I notice that the only person going about 'pure English' is you. At length.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:49 PM

4. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:52 PM

6. "I notice that the only person going about ..." Absolutely right. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:27 PM

10. From what I've read, the American congratulated "You Brits finally ... " It's in the first line of

text, right below the title line. I thought I made it quite clear. This happened right
at the time when Andy Murray had won at Wimbledon. I was reminded of this
incident more recently when I read of the problems between the English and the
Scots.

Yes, we do have similar problems over here. And furthermore, some English people
do think of us as ex-colonials, but colonials nevertheless. They may be careful not
to say it, I've traveled quite a bit and come across all kinds of people. Only once
did I come across an Englishman who accidentally let slip the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:33 PM

11. If you read this somewhere, it would have been better to give us a link

then we could see the context. Or you could have quoted the 'you Brits' bit. We have never seen this text with 'you Brits' in.

" Only once did I come across an Englishman who accidentally let slip the idea."

So, maybe, English people who genuinely think of people as 'ex-colonials' (as opposed to part of a joke) are rare. This one person seems a small sample to extrapolate your "too many Englishmen still have the mentality of people from the 18th and 19the centuries" from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:01 PM

15. I read this a month and a half ago. Can't remember the link. Sorry. But the implication of the

article was that the Englishman did not even consider Andy Murray as one of his countrymen. A
Scot had won, not an Englishman. It didn't really count. That was what I got from the article,
and that was what I tried to bring out here. There are people who try to be exclusive, they are the
egotistic type who create more problems. And their opposites are the inclusive types. These are
the giving ones, who try to resolve problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:20 PM

17. I think they are talking about the "British Isles." I, too, am a product of those British Isles,

being of English, Scottish and Welsh heritage. What else would you suggest I call myself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:35 PM

19. I'm not sure who the 'they' you refer to are.

People can, of course, call themselves British if they want. The thing about Murray is that there was a running joke, perhaps with a semi-serious point behind it, that English media would call him "British" if he won, and "Scottish" if he lost - which, if there was anything to that, would be a valid thing to complain about. The vague story in the OP (something the thread starter read a month ago, which could be misremembered or misinterpreted - we can't tell with such little context) could show an Englishman giving Scotland all the glory, because it's after a win. Which would be a good thing.

The rest of the OP seems to be the product of a lot of imagination by the thread starter. If that is who 'they' refers to, then I wouldn't bother worrying what 'they' are talking about. I don't think they know a lot about this - it seems to have come from one thing an Englishman once said to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:44 PM

20. well, OK, whatever...my entire family line comes from the general area of the British Isles.

Is that OK?

All right, given that, we have family from England, Wales and Scotland, starting in 1790 in this country, with Alexander Campbell from Scotland and proceeding from there to people who come here from Wales and England in the 19th century. That's the whole boring thing...sheesh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #20)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:02 PM

22. I'm sorry if you thought I was saying people ought not to use 'British'

I can't see why what I've written could be interpreted like that, but I can't see why else you are saying this. As I said, people can call themselves British if they want (I generally call myself that; I put 'England' in my DU profile to give a bit better of an idea where I'm from, because, when Scottish independence comes up for instance, it might be helpful to know my origin).

What I was saying is that it's not necessarily a bad thing for an Englishman to call a successful Scot like Murray 'Scottish'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #22)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:07 PM

23. I don't really want to be argumentative here...I just consider myself an American with

all my bloodlines (that I know of) to the British Isles. Did I say something factually incorrect? If I did, let me know. My family members, both sides, are from England, Scotland and Wales. That is all I know....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:13 PM

25. Why did you ask me "is that OK?"?

Were you really asking me to adjudicate on what you call yourself or or ancestry? It's not up to me. I read your "is that OK?" as a sarcastic comment implying I was trying to tell people what to call themselves. I'm not. But the OP seems to telling English people they must call Andy Murray British, not Scottish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #25)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 07:42 AM

36. Naw, I wasn't really being sarcastic with you...I think I'm just a little bored with this

"controversy" or whatever it is. I don't give it much thought, actually...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 08:28 AM

37. How about calling yourself American?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #37)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 08:56 AM

39. Of course, it's my nationality! I meant to say my forebears are all from the British Isles...

as far as I know. Of course, there could be some ancestors I don't know about...I don't much care, really...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:24 PM

27. This.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:47 PM

3. You mean the same way the South is shit on here?

They're not real people, just dumb gun totin hicks....

Yeah I get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:47 PM

33. More like, if a Brit referred to an Alabaman as a "Yankee"

he would quickly be corrected!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:51 PM

5. Scotch is a drink...

...and the Englishman is correct...Andy Murray is a Scot, not an Englishman..the rest of your rant, however, is totally lost on this particular, pure, Englishman...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:25 PM

28. Ha!

It needed to be said! I'm Scots-Irish, so I can and can't relate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:29 AM

41. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Mine is from the 1976 Edit.): Scotch adj. (contr. of

Scottish) adj. 1: Of, relating to, or characteristic of Scotland, the Scotch, or Scots. 2: inclined
to frugality.

as generous as opposed to the Scotch, who are supposed to be miserly. Even their language gives them
away!] ..............Syn: ... etc. ...

Whether you like it or not, the Englishman is as mixed as the English language is. Sorry, but this is
irrefutable history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:50 AM

42. Sorry matey, but I was born and raised there...

...Scotch is a drink. End of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #42)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:01 PM

44. Webster's is an American Dictionary. How about looking up your Oxford English Dictionary?

It's the largest and most complete dictionary of the English language in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 03:52 PM

45. Sure; they give an essay on it:

The three adjectives Scotch , Scottish , Scots , are all still current, but differ in usage. Up to the middle of the 16th cent. the usual form in most of England was Scottish ; whereas in the north of England and in Scotland the usual form was Scottis (compare α. forms at Scots adj. and n.), subsequently contracted to Scots (compare β. forms at Scots adj. and n.). The southern form Scottish begins to appear in Scottish sources in the mid 16th cent., earliest in senses relating to the language (compare Scottish adj. 4 and Scottish n. 3). From about the same time forms of the Scottis type also occur more regularly in sources from England (compare e.g. quots. a1505 at Scotsman n. 1 and 1573 at Scots-Irish n. 1), although there is an apparently isolated Middle English example from London, in an Anglo-Norman context (see quot. 1346 at Scots adj. 1a).

The contraction of Scottis to Scots first appears in the second half of the 16th cent., almost simultaneously in Scotland (compare quot. ?c1568 at Scots adj. 1a) and England (compare quot. 1573 at Scots-Irish n. 1).

The contraction of Scottish to Scotch is first recorded in late Middle English in the compound Scotchman n. (see quot. 1407 at sense A. 1a), but then not until the second half of the 16th cent. (see quot. 1563 at sense A. 1a). From that time until the mid 19th cent. Scotch supersedes Scottish as the prevailing form (in all registers) in England (with the latter remaining available as a less common and markedly formal synonym). Scotch first appears in Scotland in the late 16th cent. (earliest in the form Skotsh), becoming more common in the following cent. Until the mid 18th cent. Scots and Scottish were preferred in literary use in Scotland, but by the end of the 18th cent. (partly reflecting the vogue for Anglicization) Scotch had also become accepted in literary use, and is frequently used e.g. by Burns and Scott. In the 19th cent. Scotch even occurs in official language in Scotland (reflecting usage in London), e.g. in the name of the ‘Scotch Education Department’ (1872, renamed the ‘Scottish Education Department’ in 1918).

Uncertainty among the educated classes in Scotland concerning the relative ‘correctness’ of the three competing terms may be noted as early as the late 18th cent., and by the mid 19th cent. there is a growing tendency among educated speakers to favour the more formal Scottish or (less frequently) the more traditional Scots over what was perceived as the more vulgar Scotch . By the beginning of the 20th cent. disapproval of Scotch by educated Scots was so great that its use had become something of a shibboleth (much to the bafflement of speakers outside Scotland for whom this was the usual word). During the 20th cent. educated usage in England gradually began to adapt in deference to the perceived Scottish preferences. Paradoxically, for working-class Scots (as indeed for all speakers of Scots, as opposed to Scottish standard English) Scotch has remained in common use.

In current British standard usage (following educated Scottish usage) Scottish is now the preferred adjective, especially in applications relating to the nation or the country at large or its institutions or characteristics, with Scotch retained chiefly as a relic form in certain fixed collocations (e.g. Scotch whisky n. and Scotch broth n. at Special uses 2; compare also quot. 2003 below). Nevertheless, many speakers in England still adhere to the older usage, and for speakers of English outside Britain Scotch continues to be used more generally (although awareness of recent changes in British standard usage is increasing).

Scots is also in use as adjective (more commonly in Scotland), but chiefly in specific contexts, most prominently with reference to the Scots language (compare Scots adj. 3, Scots n. 1) and to Scots law (compare Scots adj. 4). It is also in historical use designating (now disused) monetary units (compare Scots adj. 1b) and measurement (compare Scots adj. and n. Special uses 2) and the ancient inhabitants of Scotland as distinct from the modern Scottish people (compare Scots adj. 2), and is also common in the names of regiments (compare e.g. Scots Guard n. 2 and Scots adj. 6b; compare note at sense A. 1b).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #45)

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 07:11 PM

46. It is an essay, indeed! And a long one! Many thanks for your time and effort in

having typed it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #46)

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 08:03 PM

49. Don't worry - I have online access through my library

It was just a copy and paste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:53 PM

7. Andy Murray is a Scot, not English

He's British, though.

The UK and the entity formerly known as the British Empire makes these distinctions complicated for us Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 05:53 PM

8. Pure ? No. But...

DNA testing has shown that generations have consistently remained in their local villages, even as they spread the British Empire over the earth.

For pure, Iceland? They're making a nice buck off their beautifully documented DNA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:12 PM

9. Because they ARE God's blessing to the world (and my ancestors.)

Next question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:43 PM

12. I suspect...

that this is partly down to the typical American's general ignorance of the fact that "England" refers only to part of the island of Great Britain, which in turn is part but not all of the United Kingdom. So of course if someone who's English is congratulated on an "English" winner of Wimbledon (since many Americans will probably not know the difference) he's going to say "but Andy Murray is Scottish". The English, Scots, and Welsh are all British; the Welsh and Scots are not, however, "English".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:45 PM

13. They always have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:47 PM

14. When one of my friends has a few drinks, he becomes an insufferable WASP chauvanist ass

As in, part of the "real america" due to his ancestry being English. Not Irish. Not Scottish, and certainly not Italian, hispanic, or slavic. Oh he doesn't mind having those latter mentioned around from time to time: "Some of my best friends are......"

Sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Populist_Prole (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:48 PM

34. If he's English he's probably a mix of Viking, Roman, Pict, Gaul,

and who knows what else?

There is no such thing as a "pure" anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:08 PM

16. I find the Swiss really cheesy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:24 PM

18. First, it's Scots. And secondly, it's not about "colonials" or purity,

it's about the fact that Scotland is very much a separate entity from England culturally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:57 PM

21. Yes, a separate entity, and that in spite of the fact that the English have been trying

to change them for a thousand years -- without success. They want the Scots, but as inferiors and under
English control, just as they keep their own under-classes (the Cockneys for example) in their place, and
under control. My hat off to the Scots for saying "Nae!" Who would want to live under those conditions?
The upper-class English have always been snobbish bullies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:10 PM

24. I really don't think you know enough about this to throw generalisations around like that

You are trying to take what one person once said to you, and the way you interpreted an article (from which you've only given us one sentence, so we really don't know if you understood it or not), and produce a complete stereotype for 'the English' from that. It's ridiculous to say 'the English' want the Scots as inferiors. I suspect you watch too many bad Hollywood films about Britain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:26 PM

29. lol How dare those filthy cockneys

venture beyond the sound of Bow Bells.

Excuse me while I grind my heel in to some Pearly King's throat.

Thanks for the laugh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:32 PM

30. You should probably get fewer of your ideas from television and film. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #21)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 08:45 AM

38. WTF are you talking about?

This is pure drivel, as was your OP.

I suggest you think about "American Exceptionalism" and leave the international stuff to the grown-ups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:57 AM

40. Grown-ups like you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:23 PM

26. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 08:42 PM

32. my mum was a Brit and I lived in England growing up

I never knew anyone that snobby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 09:39 PM

35. Congrats on your Views, Replies, and Recs for this. I'm envious. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:52 AM

43. Scotch is whisky.

Those from Scotland are Scots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 07:15 PM

47. Even by the standards of blinkered exceptionalists this thread is comedy gold.

This colonial finds your attempts to double down on the wonderfully absurd stretches you're making to be nothing short of adorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #47)

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 07:19 PM

48. I just love comedy. Don't we all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread