Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 62 of 62

Thread: Went shooting yesterday....

  1. #41
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think you entirely missed the point of my previous post. Let's go over it again: You suggested that one the reasons the M4 is popular among the troops is that the people who die due to it's deficiencies aren't around to share their negative opinions of it. I responded that this is absurd because other soldiers notice when their buddies get killed due to the deficiencies of their weapons; it's not like that's something that's only noticed by the guy who actually gets killed. In fact, Sgt. Perales' quote supports this point; he saw his buddy get killed because of an M4 stoppage, and therefore has a negative opinion of it. So your "those who have something to complain about are probably dead" argument doesn't explain why surveys reveal that the M4 is popular among the troops. If lots of soldiers really were dying due to M4/M16 stoppages, the troops would notice and the surveys would reveal that many troops are unhappy with the weapon. Sgt. Perales' story is moving, but I hope you know enough to realize that solitary anecdotes don't prove anything one way or the other about the big picture.

    I have no military experience. I don't think it's particularly relevant, since as we all know, military experience provides no immunity against being bone-headed, being obstinately wedded to baseless opinions, or just being plain dumb or uninformed.

    EDIT: Speaking of special operations units and the weapons they use, the SAS has pretty much had it with the L85A2 which you praised earlier, and has switched to an AR platform (Diemacos). Same is true of other British special operations units like the SBS. And also, Delta Force is still using an AR platform, albeit one with a gas-piston upper.
    Last edited by Syme; 03-09-2009 at 01:26 PM.

  2. #42
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I can tell you that the surveys are almost always guaranteed to be biased. US service members have the M16/M4 shoved down their throat and get almost no exposure to any other individual weapon systems. Yeah the M4 is the best rifle they have ever used... but the thing is they have never ever held another rifle. For instance, one of my buddies went to the Ukraine with his unit for training with the Ukrainian military. While he was over their, he was able to use a G36. His and his entire unit's opinion changed towards the M4 after using a G36.



    By the way, an 18B is a special forces weapons sergeant if you didn't know. They are trained to be experts in using and maintaining a plethora of weapon systems, both foreign and domestic.

  3. #43
    Senior Member fm2176's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    539
    Credits
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Disclaimer: I am just a lowly grunt with seven years experience in Infantry tactics, and no formal knowledge outside of my own experiences.

    That out of the way, I have yet to place a weapon on burst outside of playing OPFOR. Every Infantry squad has two M249 Squad Automatic Weapons. Tactics used when the Army adopted the M14 and later the M16A1 were that two men per squad would act as automatic riflemen. In a firefight they would fire on auto while everyone else took aimed single shots. In practice, green Soldiers would panic, switch their weapons to auto and pray they hit something with all the noise they made. As a SAW gunner I carried either 100 or 200 rounds in my weapon. I was trained to conserve ammo and never fired cyclic or even rapid during my time in Iraq. I would fire sustained bursts as I was trained and eventually perfected. The average service rifle holds 30 rounds. It fires just about as quick as a SAW, lacks the control-ability, and is equipped with a thin permanently fixed barrel. Not everyone has the discipline I have learned, and I have seen plenty of weapons start smoking just being fired on burst rapidly.

    The more expedient side of me says that we Infantry must work with what we have. That 18B that was shot in the face either wasn't behind cover or was nose-to-nose with the enemy. Me, I had a plan if my open-bolt SAW malfunctioned during room clearing, as Murphy's Law dictates any open-bolt weapon will do (which is why an ambush is never initiated by a belt-fed). If Haji came around a corner, I squeezed the trigger and heard "KERCHUNK", that M249 Squad Automatic Weapon was going to become its own projectile. I had a spare barrel, ASP and MKII knife that was a backup. Never could get the pistol I felt I should have had. We are already better trained and equipped than any enemy we currently have or will have in he foreseeable future. If we adopted a better service rifle, we might get penalized for cheating.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer
    I can tell you that the surveys are almost always guaranteed to be biased. US service members have the M16/M4 shoved down their throat and get almost no exposure to any other individual weapon systems. Yeah the M4 is the best rifle they have ever used... but the thing is they have never ever held another rifle.
    Yeah, I'm just not really convinced by this line of reasoning. I would agree that many soldiers are unaware that other rifles may be more reliable than the M4, not really having any experience with rifles outside of the Army, but I don't think that makes the surveys meaningless. If the M4 really did have a crippling deficiency that was getting soldiers killed all the time, as you claim, I think soldiers would be able to notice that problem even if they've never fired a SCAR or whatever; I think soldiers are capable of noticing crappy equipment even if they don't have first-hand experience with better equipment. Frequent jamming is not a problem that you need to have fired a G36 in order to notice. I think your dismissal of the surveys on this grounds is disingenuous.

    And by "shoved down their throats", do you mean... issued to them??

  5. #45
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Yeah, I'm just not really convinced by this line of reasoning.
    Yeah, I really don't give a shit what you think. I am telling you how it is and that the M16/M4 is an obsolete weapon system. Our military is not using the best equipment available and my life, the lives of my soldiers and fellow servicemen and women are at risk.

  6. #46
    Senior Member crunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    162
    Credits
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Consider the logistics of issuing only the best equipment to every one of the over one million members of the American armed forces...
    You can't always have the best.

  7. #47
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crunker View Post
    Consider the logistics of issuing only the best equipment to every one of the over one million members of the American armed forces...
    You can't always have the best.
    You phase it in. I have been issued a M16A1 and A2 before while most of the military uses M4s and M16A4s.

  8. #48
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    and my life, the lives of my soldiers and fellow servicemen and women are at risk.
    ...

    i do hope you see the irony in this

    (that was my contribution to this conversation)

  9. #49
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    Yeah, I really don't give a shit what you think.
    Great argument, case closed! I wish I'd thought of using this one at the very beginning of the discussion, instead of foolishly trying to respond to the opposing arguments as if we were actually intelligent people having a debate. I guess when you finally can't intelligently respond to an opposing argument, we get to see the true face of the Bowzer Debate Technique.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer
    I am telling you how it is and that the M16/M4 is an obsolete weapon system.
    No, you're telling me how you think it is. You're offering your opinion (rudely, but still). If your attitude is "Well, I'm just right and I'll tell you how it is, end of story", then that's fine, but you shouldn't have come into a forum dedicated to discussion if that's the attitude you choose to take. Why even bother trying to discuss these issues in a forum if that's your attitude?

    So now that you've told us how you think it is, let me tell you how I think it is: Despite your attempts to act like your view of the M4/M16 platform is entirely justified by your military experience, it seems like that view is actually just another one of the vitriolic knee-jerk responses that all too many gun enthusiasts take on various divisive pet issues (direct impingement vs. oprod piston, 5.56mm vs. larger calibers, 9mm vs. .45, polymer vs. steel, etc. etc. etc.) based on little more than personal inclination. You are trying to use your enlistment and experience as a pretext to legitimize and justify that pre-established opinion, and as a hammer to smack down disagreement. You're just trying to fall back on the "I'm in the Army and you're a civilian so I automatically know best" crap; you're living proof of my earlier point that being in the military provides no guarantee against being dumb or obstinate. You're just another clown who thinks that having been through your training and run around with an M16 in drills means you're automatically the authority and can automatically overrule any civilian who notices that you're full of it.

    Oh yeah, and you've managed to successfully derail the thread into a discussion of military assault rifles, steering it away from it's original topic of sporting rifles, and you're managed to avoid ever spending much time talking about your original contributions in this thread: Your claim that AR sporting rifles are "overpriced" at $1000 per rifle, and then your hilarious suggestion that a better choice would be any of various rifles costing $2000 to $9000 (or else being foreign military assault rifles that are totally unavailable, or failed development programs that never even made it into service). Care to talk about that some more? Let's get this thread back on topic. Please, defend your initial assertion that the AR is an overpriced piece of crap that you would never spend your money on.
    Last edited by Syme; 03-11-2009 at 12:32 AM.

  10. #50
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    No, you're telling me how you think it is. You're offering your opinion (rudely, but still). If your attitude is "Well, I'm just right and I'll tell you how it is, end of story", then that's fine, but you shouldn't have come into a forum dedicated to discussion if that's the attitude you choose to take.
    Yes, I am telling you how I think it is. I am also telling you what the facts show and experts think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    You're just another clown who thinks that having been through your training and run around with an M16 in drills means you're automatically the authority and can automatically overrule any civilian who notices that you're full of it.
    And you're just another prick who thinks you know more than experts and those who have first hand experience. There is absolutely no reason the greatest military in the world who spends hundreds of billions more on defense than any other country should be using a second rate rifle.


    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Your claim that AR sporting rifles are "overpriced" at $1000 per rifle, and then your hilarious suggestion that a better choice would be any of various rifles costing $2000 to $9000 (or else being foreign military assault rifles that are totally unavailable, or failed development programs that never even made it into service). Care to talk about that some more? Let's get this thread back on topic. Please, defend your initial assertion that the AR is an overpriced piece of crap that you would never spend your money on.
    I would rather have a top of the line superior, cutting edge, top of the line rifle than and outdated inferior rifle with major flaws. I, however, demand excellence in my equipment, especially when lives depend on it.

    And I never suggested that you, a civilian, should spend 9000 dollars on a weapon. I was just proving you wrong that you could indeed get a G36.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Are you seriously going to try and claim that your position is supported by the experts and by those with military experience, while mine isn't? My position is the one that is agreed with by the procurement and development decision-makers in the US Army; they have examined gas piston rifles such as the XM8, and found that while they may offer an incremental improvement over the M16, that improvement isn't significant enough to justify the cost and hassle of adopting a new service rifle. That's why they canceled the XM8 program, you know. Not enough of an improvement over the M16. I don't "think I know more than experts"--I'm taking my opinion on this from the experts.

    And as for military experience, I know plenty of people who have a lot more military experience than you--including actual combat experience--and don't share your goofy anti-M16 rage. Fm2176 on this forum would be a good example. So please, don't insult our intelligence by trying to cast this debate as "clueless civilian vs. those with military experience". You may hate the M16, and you may have first-hand experience, but that definitely doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is claiming to know better than "those with first-hand experience" in general. Because there are plenty of people with first-hand experience who agree with me and disagree with you on this issue. In fact, as was pointed out earlier, most soldiers in the US Army agree with me on this. But oh yeah, I forgot: That inconvenient little fact doesn't count, because those surveys are biased and the troops are incapable of noticing problems with their rifles unless they've fired a G36 or SCAR.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    I would rather have a top of the line superior, cutting edge, top of the line rifle than and outdated inferior rifle with major flaws. I, however, demand excellence in my equipment, especially when lives depend on it.
    Uhh... again, we're talking about civilian sporting rifles here, so lives don't really depend on it. Anyhow, it's all very well to demand the best, but one of your initial complaints against the AR was that it's too expensive. Now it sounds like you're trying to change your tune to "It doesn't matter how much it costs, I always must have for the best!" Which isn't at all what you said originally. You said the AR was too expensive

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer
    And I never suggested that you, a civilian, should spend 9000 dollars on a weapon. I was just proving you wrong that you could indeed get a G36.
    But when I asked what rifles you would rather spend your money on instead of an AR, a G36 was one of the rifles you suggested. You DID tell us that a $9000 rifle was a better choice than a $1000 AR... right after you had criticized the AR as being overpriced! In fact my exact question was: "What's an example of a less expensive, less outdated rifle that is comparable to an AR-15 in function and role?" To which you replied:

    G36 ($9000 and ultra-rare instead of being totally unavailable, what an improvement!)
    SCAR ($2600)
    Tavor (unavailable)
    XM8 (unavailable, the military doesn't even have them)
    416 (not available yet, price will probably be $2000+ when they are available)
    L85 (unavailable)
    Last edited by Syme; 03-11-2009 at 11:19 AM.

  12. #52
    Senior Member Killuminati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,925
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Bowzer you came into this thread not realizing you were going to be called out on what you said. When you realized you were fucked you changed your argument and continue to twist it. Give it up.

  13. #53
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Credits
    2,337
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killuminati View Post
    Bowzer you came into this thread not realizing you were going to be called out on what you said. When you realized you were fucked you changed your argument and continue to twist it. Give it up.
    Pretty much...

  14. #54
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    But oh yeah, I forgot: That inconvenient little fact doesn't count, because those surveys are biased and the troops are incapable of noticing problems with their rifles unless they've fired a G36 or SCAR.
    Oh good, you're catching on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Which isn't at all what you said originally. You said the AR was too expensive
    Actually, I said it was overpriced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    But when I asked what rifles you would rather spend your money on instead of an AR, a G36 was one of the rifles you suggested. You DID tell us that a $9000 rifle was a better choice than a $1000 AR... right after you had criticized the AR as being overpriced!
    The G36 is a better rifle than the AR-15. And yes, $9000 is expensive for some people (although the price is quite inflated) but that still does not change the fact that it is a superior weapon system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    In fact my exact question was: "What's an example of a less expensive, less outdated rifle that is comparable to an AR-15 in function and role?"
    To add more to the list (btw, im only adding weapons in .223):
    Galil
    Mini 14
    and any AK chambered in 5.56

    Quote Originally Posted by Killuminati View Post
    Bowzer you came into this thread not realizing you were going to be called out on what you said. When you realized you were fucked you changed your argument and continue to twist it. Give it up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous D View Post
    Pretty much...
    What can I say?


    Lol

  15. #55
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    dude i don't think you understand what trolling is.

  16. #56
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    dude i don't think you understand what trolling is.
    if you say so

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

  17. #57
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urban dictionary
    Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people
    the emphasis is mine

    you weren't purposefully trying to antagonize anyone. you're entire method of arguing thus far is to realize (or not) that the previous position you stated is untenable, so your response is to change your position subtly, allowing you to say that you're right, but you're not really backing up what you're saying at all.

    Calling yourself a troll is the internet acceptable way of trying to save face in a losing argument, but you weren't trying to do that since the beginning - anyone who reads this thread and looks at the tone and phrasing you use throughout all of your arguments can see that. No troll is that subtle, because there's no point in one being that subtle, and I certainly wouldn't ever accuse you of subtlety.

  18. #58
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    Calling yourself a troll is the internet acceptable way of trying to save face in a losing argument, but you weren't trying to do that since the beginning - anyone who reads this thread and looks at the tone and phrasing you use throughout all of your arguments can see that.
    What tone and/or losing argument are you talking about? Give me some examples.

  19. #59
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    "Yes, I am telling you how I think it is. I am also telling you what the facts show and experts think. "

    this is baseless bragadoccio, where you simply spout something off to seem big, but provide no information or links/sources to back up your opinions. oh, except a yahoo! answers thread. very reputable

    "Yeah, I really don't give a shit what you think. I am telling you how it is and that the M16/M4 is an obsolete weapon system. Our military is not using the best equipment available and my life, the lives of my soldiers and fellow servicemen and women are at risk."

    this isn't even on track with the argument itself, and i don't have to prove the statement itself fallacious, because Syme did an excellent job of doing so already.

    "SOCOM has pretty much had it with the M16 platform.

    Btw, what kind of military experience do you have? "

    ah yes, one incident of anecdotal evidence will certainly prove everything i've said to be correct

    i mean this is all just off hand i am certainly not spending more than the three minutes i did making my point

  20. #60
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    this is baseless bragadoccio, where you simply spout something off to seem big, but provide no information or links/sources to back up your opinions. oh, except a yahoo! answers thread. very reputable
    Ah yes, all the sources I did not cite. Or are you talking about the sources I did cite and you failed to notice?

    And the yahoo thing was to show other opinions. That was it.

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    i mean this is all just off hand i am certainly not spending more than the three minutes i did making my point
    Me niether. By the way, the quote button works wonders.

  21. #61
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer
    Oh good, you're catching on.
    So let me just make sure I've got this totally straightened out here. I want to be sure what you mean. Earlier, you claimed that because you are in the military and have first-hand experience with the M4/M16, your opinion of it is therefore more valid and you are able to "tell it like it is" to us dumb civilians. But now, when all these other soldiers (who of course have military experience just like you do) say that they're happy with the M4/M16 in the surveys, you claim that their experience doesn't automatically make their opinions valid, and they are still capable of being wrong or deluded or ignorant in spite of their military experience. So when it comes to your opinions, military experience equals validity. But when it comes to the opinions of all the soldiers who disagree with you, military experience does not equal validity and is no protection against being wrong. Is that right? I just want to get this straight, because you've been really unclear about whether someone's opinion on the M16/M4 is or isn't validated by their military experience. It almost sounds like a double standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer
    To add more to the list (btw, im only adding weapons in .223):
    Galil
    Mini 14
    and any AK chambered in 5.56
    These are somewhat more reasonable than your earlier suggestions in that they aren't several times more expensive than an AR, but the AR platform still has plenty to recommend it over any of these rifles. The Mini-14 is a handy little rifle, but it's pretty unremarkable in every way; it's generally not going to be a really tight-grouping target rifle in the way that the AR can be. Also, despite having an oprod gas piston system, it's really not that reliable. Read around and see. Good mags are also a bitch to find. Galil sporters are also kind of neat, but again, don't expect it to be as accurate as an AR. And the lower-priced Galil sporters (in the $700-800 range) are generally the Century ones, which are pretty well-known for having quality control and reliability problems. A really solid Galil sporter will cost as much or more than a good-quality AR ($1000 or more), and not really have any meaningful advantage over it. 5.56mm AKs are, yet again, neat rifles but they even come close to the accuracy of an AR unless you go for one of the top-of-the-line models, which are, again just as pricey as an AR or more so. Ergonomics also suck. And with all three of these rifles, they will never come anywhere close to the AR platform in terms of being able to configure the weapon how you want it. You can't put the stock you want on them. You can't put the grip you want on them. There aren't nearly as many aftermarket parts options for them. Optics mounting options are much more limited. And so on and so on.

    I really don't understand why you are so opposed to the idea of the AR as a sporting rifle. I've already heard what you have to say about it's reliability in a dust storm or whatever, and that's all great, but my local range is usually not plagued by dust storms. Why do you feel so strongly that the DI gas system is inappropriate for a sporting rifle? It seems like you are willing to accept rifles that are inferior to the AR in accuracy, ergonomics, and adaptability as long as they don't have a DI gas system. Why do you feel that the gas system's resistance to dust and jamming is the absolute most important factor in a sporting rifle, and that all other factors are secondary to it? Why is it a terrible thing for a sporting rifle to have a DI gas system no matter how many other advantages it might have over other similarly-priced rifles?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer
    Or are you talking about the sources I did cite and you failed to notice?
    A complete survey of this thread reveals that you have cited three sources. Okay, not bad; three sources is a reasonable number. But what were those sources? Well, one was essentially an anecdote (the story about the 18B getting shot); I'm not doubting the story's truth, but as we all know, anecdotes are totally useless for proving a point. The next one was an anecdote, AND it came from a Yahoo Answers page. Wow. And the last one was a valid study, but you failed to mention (or perhaps even realize) that it's results represent an unexplained statistical snafu that the guys doing the study haven't been able to figure out yey... and you cherry-picked the result that more strongly supports your case, while completely neglecting to mention the result that doesn't support your case as well.
    Last edited by Syme; 03-12-2009 at 05:07 AM.

  22. #62
    Senior Member bacon ops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    421
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    Oh good, you're catching on.



    Actually, I said it was overpriced.



    The G36 is a better rifle than the AR-15. And yes, $9000 is expensive for some people (although the price is quite inflated) but that still does not change the fact that it is a superior weapon system.



    To add more to the list (btw, im only adding weapons in .223):
    Galil
    Mini 14
    and any AK chambered in 5.56





    What can I say?


    Lol

Similar Threads

  1. Did anyone play in the CoD tourny on xbl yesterday?
    By effingawwesome in forum Gamer's Haven
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 01:16 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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