DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Gov. Sanford
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 116, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/03/2009 12:02:45 PM · #76
Originally posted by NikonJeb:



And *MY* experience is myopic?????

Dude, I totally and completely give up!

You win, I cannot argue logic and facts like that! LOL!!!


That's not what I meant. I even state that my prsonal experience MAY be myopic also.I don't see the stats as a big difference and I don't assume the stats are skewed. What I'm saying is that our personal experiences don't offer up a fair sample of the population. My background is in stats and economics. I could tear apart most any survey with just the fact that those who would admit it or even take the survey in the first place aren't a true random sample of the population. I've seen other sources (that I can't seem to locate right now) that say women are less likely to admit an affair even if its an anonomous confession. So go figure.

Your frustrations seem to stem from the fact that I'm not going step up to your moral highground and you reiterating that its "just plain wrong" (or insulting my logic or reasoning) doesn't make me more willing to judge something I (nor I believe anyone) could completely understand.

In answer to Zxarr It varies from state to to state in the US. It can be a $10 fine (MD) to life imprisonment to non criminal (PA). The laws against it strike me as archaic...

07/03/2009 12:34:49 PM · #77
Originally posted by NikonJeb:



And *MY* experience is myopic?????

Dude, I totally and completely give up!

You win, I cannot argue logic and facts like that! LOL!!!


Originally posted by neophyte:

That's not what I meant. I even state that my prsonal experience MAY be myopic also.I don't see the stats as a big difference and I don't assume the stats are skewed. What I'm saying is that our personal experiences don't offer up a fair sample of the population. My background is in stats and economics. I could tear apart most any survey with just the fact that those who would admit it or even take the survey in the first place aren't a true random sample of the population. I've seen other sources (that I can't seem to locate right now) that say women are less likely to admit an affair even if its an anonomous confession. So go figure.

Your frustrations seem to stem from the fact that I'm not going step up to your moral highground and you reiterating that its "just plain wrong" (or insulting my logic or reasoning) doesn't make me more willing to judge something I (nor I believe anyone) could completely understand.

You sure selectively quoted that last post.......kinda leaving out the part where you told me the FACT that I dismissed was that women cheat as much as men....then YOUR OWN STATISTIC from a male-oriented source indicated 33% more adultery than women.

You don't see a 33% difference as a pretty big difference?

My only frustration is trying to understand how you can say things one time like you can't condemn the man for cheating on his wife without all the facts, then you turn around and say infidelity is wrong, and little tidbits like your "fact" about men/women cheating, which YOU then discredit.

The whole reason I didn't bother to post any of the stats I had, which were pretty much right in line with the one you supplied is because I figured that you'd give me the old saw about convenient statistics, and I wasn't going down that path.

I really don't know what to say at this point.....I know I will make my choices based on different criteria than you, and that's fine. I am not, nor have I ever tried to get you to support my point of view, but I am completely astonished at the way you constantly contradict yourself and won't acknowledge some of the same basic things you state at various points.

That's my frustration...at one point you did state that infidelity is wrong.

So how can you justify what Sanford did, and not agree that it's wrong?

She may be the most contemptible witch alive, but does that make it any less an act of infidelity?

And if so, isn't it wrong, regardless of what she may have done and whether or not you feel the law may be archaic?
07/03/2009 06:20:46 PM · #78
I think the guy's a typical right wing conservative hypocrite.

07/03/2009 06:37:26 PM · #79
Tales of Republicans, Bonobos and Adultery (Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times:
A ... poll conducted by the Pew Research Center three years ago found that Americans considered adultery worse than abortion, smoking marijuana or cheating on taxes.

It is hard not to be bemused by the contrast between the straight-and-narrow political persona of Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and his messy, steamy circumstances. Still, I am somewhat perplexed by the surprise and the outrage over a transgression that has been around forever.

We all have heard the Kinsey statistics: half of married men reported having an extramarital affair at some time during their marriage; a quarter of married women had an affair by the time they were 40. Even if we account for menís propensity to brag, there is still a lot of illicit sex going on.

07/03/2009 06:44:09 PM · #80
Originally posted by shamrock:

Originally posted by zxaar:


just want to ask one question, since i have no idea about laws in US, is it illigal to sleep with another women while you are married to someone else.
Not talking about rape, just asking if two adults consent and indulge in it. Is it deemed illegal ????


It is in fact "illegal" to sleep with someone that is not your spouse in several states. This includes cohabitation by consenting, otherwise unencumbered adults. Leftovers from the archaic "blue laws". As far as i know, it's not ever enforced in the sense that you are arrested and jailed, though there may still be some states that require that someone show "fault" to obtain a divorce, and adultery would be grounds for such a thing.


thank you very much for reply, i just wanted to know whether he broke any law or not. So now i need to find out how is the case with his state. Or state where this probable crime (where they slept) is commited.
07/03/2009 06:51:25 PM · #81
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:



And *MY* experience is myopic?????

Dude, I totally and completely give up!

You win, I cannot argue logic and facts like that! LOL!!!


Originally posted by neophyte:

That's not what I meant. I even state that my prsonal experience MAY be myopic also.I don't see the stats as a big difference and I don't assume the stats are skewed. What I'm saying is that our personal experiences don't offer up a fair sample of the population. My background is in stats and economics. I could tear apart most any survey with just the fact that those who would admit it or even take the survey in the first place aren't a true random sample of the population. I've seen other sources (that I can't seem to locate right now) that say women are less likely to admit an affair even if its an anonomous confession. So go figure.

Your frustrations seem to stem from the fact that I'm not going step up to your moral highground and you reiterating that its "just plain wrong" (or insulting my logic or reasoning) doesn't make me more willing to judge something I (nor I believe anyone) could completely understand.

You sure selectively quoted that last post.......kinda leaving out the part where you told me the FACT that I dismissed was that women cheat as much as men....then YOUR OWN STATISTIC from a male-oriented source indicated 33% more adultery than women.

You don't see a 33% difference as a pretty big difference?

My only frustration is trying to understand how you can say things one time like you can't condemn the man for cheating on his wife without all the facts, then you turn around and say infidelity is wrong, and little tidbits like your "fact" about men/women cheating, which YOU then discredit.

The whole reason I didn't bother to post any of the stats I had, which were pretty much right in line with the one you supplied is because I figured that you'd give me the old saw about convenient statistics, and I wasn't going down that path.

I really don't know what to say at this point.....I know I will make my choices based on different criteria than you, and that's fine. I am not, nor have I ever tried to get you to support my point of view, but I am completely astonished at the way you constantly contradict yourself and won't acknowledge some of the same basic things you state at various points.

That's my frustration...at one point you did state that infidelity is wrong.

So how can you justify what Sanford did, and not agree that it's wrong?

She may be the most contemptible witch alive, but does that make it any less an act of infidelity?

And if so, isn't it wrong, regardless of what she may have done and whether or not you feel the law may be archaic?


this is the problem, you see things in black and white stripes. It is either right or wrong regardless of circumstances.
Lets consider this case where person A tried to kill person B by firing gun on him and is determined to kill person B.
Now it so happens that in defending himself person B ended up killing person A.

According to you person B has commited crime by killing A and should be punished regardless of what person A did to him.
Crime is crime and should be independent of what other person did.

Is this your line of logic????

to me neophyte has been most sensible poster in this thread because rather than finding obvious fault he said lets not judge untill we know more about whole thing.
07/03/2009 07:06:35 PM · #82
Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by shamrock:

Originally posted by zxaar:


just want to ask one question, since i have no idea about laws in US, is it illigal to sleep with another women while you are married to someone else.
Not talking about rape, just asking if two adults consent and indulge in it. Is it deemed illegal ????


It is in fact "illegal" to sleep with someone that is not your spouse in several states. This includes cohabitation by consenting, otherwise unencumbered adults. Leftovers from the archaic "blue laws". As far as i know, it's not ever enforced in the sense that you are arrested and jailed, though there may still be some states that require that someone show "fault" to obtain a divorce, and adultery would be grounds for such a thing.


thank you very much for reply, i just wanted to know whether he broke any law or not. So now i need to find out how is the case with his state. Or state where this probable crime (where they slept) is commited.


Adultery is illegal in:

Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia

The specific definitions of "adultery" vary slightly and the penalties vary as well. The problem would be with enforcement. The issues of the state being involved in peoples' sex lives similar to the way sodomy laws have been struck down.
07/03/2009 07:17:16 PM · #83
Originally posted by zxaar:

this is the problem, you see things in black and white stripes. It is either right or wrong regardless of circumstances.
Lets consider this case where person A tried to kill person B by firing gun on him and is determined to kill person B.
Now it so happens that in defending himself person B ended up killing person A.

According to you person B has commited crime by killing A and should be punished regardless of what person A did to him.

No, that's called self-defense.

Originally posted by zxaar:

Crime is crime and should be independent of what other person did.

Is this your line of logic????

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with logic, I'm talking about the marital contract they made to each other.

If one cheats on the other, it's infidelity, or adultery.

If the other cheats, too, is it your opinion that it cancels out what the first one did?

To me, that seems to me to mean that they're both adulterers.
Originally posted by zxaar:

to me neophyte has been most sensible poster in this thread because rather than finding obvious fault he said lets not judge untill we know more about whole thing.

Hey, I have every right to my opinion of him as a scumbag on multiple levels......you have every right to NOT share that opinion.

PLEASE make your own determination in whatever manner that you feel right about.

However......when it comes down to breaking contracts and laws, it *IS* black and white whther you like it or not.

Let's recap here.....

Sanford cheated on his wife.

He got caught.

He admitted it on national television.

Is there any question in your mind that he broke his marital contract?

Is that wrong, or are you of the opinion that if he has a good reason, that he didn't break the marital contract?

And if it's somehow okay, what about this?

South Carolina Code of Laws
SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.
Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

SECTION 16-15-70. "Adultery" defined.

"Adultery" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.



07/03/2009 07:21:15 PM · #84
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The specific definitions of "adultery" vary slightly and the penalties vary as well. The problem would be with enforcement. The issues of the state being involved in peoples' sex lives similar to the way sodomy laws have been struck down.

I really don't think to a certain extent that people are even arguing whether or not the laws are archaic and need reform.....the issue with this guy is that, in fact, he is both breaking the law, and his marriage contract.

Somehow, his defenders seem to think if he has a good reason it's okay.

That doesn't make it any less illegal.

And I am definitely in the camp that doesn't think it's okay, either.
07/03/2009 07:36:05 PM · #85
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The specific definitions of "adultery" vary slightly and the penalties vary as well. The problem would be with enforcement. The issues of the state being involved in peoples' sex lives similar to the way sodomy laws have been struck down.

I really don't think to a certain extent that people are even arguing whether or not the laws are archaic and need reform.....the issue with this guy is that, in fact, he is both breaking the law, and his marriage contract.

Somehow, his defenders seem to think if he has a good reason it's okay.

That doesn't make it any less illegal.

And I am definitely in the camp that doesn't think it's okay, either.


I don't think the legality is really pertinent. The morality of his choices is relevant, especially in light of his previous statements on the matter where it concerns others who happen to disagree with him politically.

I think he's just a big hypocrite.
07/03/2009 08:23:19 PM · #86
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by zxaar:

this is the problem, you see things in black and white stripes. It is either right or wrong regardless of circumstances.
Lets consider this case where person A tried to kill person B by firing gun on him and is determined to kill person B.
Now it so happens that in defending himself person B ended up killing person A.

According to you person B has commited crime by killing A and should be punished regardless of what person A did to him.

No, that's called self-defense.


Yes it is selfdefense but according to your arguement - irrespective of what other person did, it should be judged on what he did and not on what others did, it should be crime. And wrong thing to do.

So pick which way you want to go, crime (and wrong) or not. If not then why you do not want to consider gov case with actions of other persons involved.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:


Originally posted by zxaar:

Crime is crime and should be independent of what other person did.

Is this your line of logic????

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with logic, I'm talking about the marital contract they made to each other.

If one cheats on the other, it's infidelity, or adultery.

If the other cheats, too, is it your opinion that it cancels out what the first one did?



Nope, my opinion is wait and see things completely taking regard to who did what. Which is what neophyte is been saying all along. I do not think he aproved adultery, he merely said that rather than jumping to conclusions see things fully. The things sometimes what they look on face may turned out to be completely different when investigated.

07/03/2009 08:24:36 PM · #87
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


I think he's just a big hypocrite.


This i wholeheartedly agree.
07/03/2009 08:49:16 PM · #88
Originally posted by zxaar:

Yes it is selfdefense but according to your arguement - irrespective of what other person did, it should be judged on what he did and not on what others did, it should be crime. And wrong thing to do.

No, that is not my standpoint at all. Don't assume you know what I mean, you obviously don't.

Originally posted by zxaar:

So pick which way you want to go, crime (and wrong) or not.


Okay...crime=wrong

Self-defense is *NOT* a crime.

Originally posted by zxaar:

Nope, my opinion is wait and see things completely taking regard to who did what. Which is what neophyte is been saying all along. I do not think he aproved adultery, he merely said that rather than jumping to conclusions see things fully. The things sometimes what they look on face may turned out to be completely different when investigated.

I stated previously that you should form your own opinion.

He still broke the law and admitted it.

I'm REALLY having a hard time seeing why you guys cannot follow this process.

1. Sanford slept with his Argentinian mistress.

2. He got caught

3. He admitted it.....on national television.

4. It's adultery by the South Carolina code of laws Section 16-15-60.

5. He broke the law by his own admission.

AGAIN!!!

South Carolina Code of Laws
SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.
Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

SECTION 16-15-70. "Adultery" defined.

"Adultery" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.


So, what more do you need in the way of information to decide whether or not he broke the law?

I will reiterate again.....feel free to think whatever you want to about this guy, but he still broke the law.

07/03/2009 08:50:37 PM · #89
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


I think he's just a big hypocrite.


Originally posted by zxaar:

This i wholeheartedly agree.

You can NOT possibly agree unless you think he's wrong for what he did.

Are you going to contradict yourself, too?
07/03/2009 09:49:17 PM · #90
Uh your honor, umm I got a call, yea, a call, because ,umm, not only am I a governor, but Iím a uhh, mattress cop, uh-uh, a captain, no the president of mattresses. And, and ,I was checking on a ummmmm, tag removal, yea thatís the ticket. As I was uhhh, walking to the place I, uhhh got splashed, yea splashed buy a uhhh big truck, yea the biggest truck in the world. So I went to the place with ripped tag, and removed my clothes, so to not dirty everything, yea, and, and, there was a girl there, umm, umm a model, no Miss America, yea thatís the ticket, and ,umm she was nude, yea , nude, and as I was checking for the tag, I slipped, yea, slipped, and my thing fell into her thing, yea thatís the ticket, so I was ummm just doing my duty, yea my duty your honor.

Message edited by author 2009-07-03 22:21:34.
07/03/2009 10:03:13 PM · #91
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

SECTION 16-15-70. "Adultery" defined.

"Adultery" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.

If I was unlucky enough to be his defense lawyer, I'd argue that once or twice a year doesn't constitute "habitual" conduct.

Personally, I think those laws are outmoded as criminal statutes (a civil case for breach of contract might be more appropriate), but his lying and hypocrisy are fatal flaws for someone who aspires to a position of public trust and responsibility ... if Clinton, who "did not have sex with that woman" deserved impeachment, which this jerk voted for when in Congress (though fortunately not while in congress), how does he not deserve the same treatment and condemnation?
07/03/2009 10:31:29 PM · #92
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


SECTION 16-15-70. "Adultery" defined.

"Adultery" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person. [/b]

So, what more do you need in the way of information to decide whether or not he broke the law?

I will reiterate again.....feel free to think whatever you want to about this guy, but he still broke the law.


Although I am not all that familiar with the particulars of this case, the prosecution might have a problem in that

a) there is seemingly no indication that they lived together, and

b) they would have to prove that habitual carnal intercourse occurred.

Things may not be as clear as they seem to some.

Ray
07/03/2009 10:49:52 PM · #93
Ah, the wonderful world of moral relativism! If a person espouses a standard, they can be guilty of hypocrisy by failing to adhere to that standard, but a person who claims to have no standards cannot be guilty of wrong doing, even if they engage in the exact same behavior. If moral standards are not external to all individuals' opinions, they are not standards at all. And yes, by definition, a standard is arbitrary - it really does not care about anyone's opinion or circumstances.
Also, in our modern times, I've never understood how an individual's failure to uphold a standard invalidates the standard. One might suspect that some who hold that there are no standards, or that each person defines their own standards are conveniently finding others' inability to conform to a standard an excuse for their own behavior. Maybe it is as simple as no likes being told what to do, or to be confronted that what they're doing is wrong.
</stick in hornets nest, stirring>
07/04/2009 12:48:37 AM · #94
Originally posted by neophyte:

How was he as a governor and senator? His private life should be just that; private.


No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!!

07/04/2009 02:46:24 AM · #95
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by neophyte:

How was he as a governor and senator? His private life should be just that; private.


No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!!


No, no, no, he's a Hypocrite. Practice what he preaches, not what he does. Don't condemn him for doing what he's condemned others for doing, he's special. He's weak and was taken advantage of, while everyone else knew all along what they were doing.

The fact that he's a Republican that can't keep his pants zipped around women other than his wife just adds to the overall hypocrisy of the entire party.
07/04/2009 04:22:06 AM · #96
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by neophyte:

How was he as a governor and senator? His private life should be just that; private.


No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!!


Here is a hint, if you think it is a private issue, stop calling press conferences to talk about it. It won't stop the presses, but how can you ask for silence if you won't shut up?

Calling for the prosecution of a politician because he lied about an extra marital affair, while you are a politician lying about an extra marital affair is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. If Sanford hadn't railed against the very behavior he was enjoying during the impeachment of Clinton, then it wouldn't be so outrageous that he seems to have no shame about the situation, nor any plans to do what he said Clinton ought to do, which was to step down from office and deal with his private matters in private.

Sure it is better fodder for late night comics when moralistic social conservative Republicans get caught with their pants down, just as it is funnier when bleeding heart tax happy Democrats turn out to be tax dodgers, or closet racists. When something is the opposite of what it pretends to be it's funny. You can get angry about it, but you can't change it. Part of what made Gov. Spitzer's troubles so funny wasn't the fact that he was having sex outside his marriage, but that Mr "law and order" was paying a prostitute for that sex. The affair, so-so, the hooker, that is what the press flayed him for, and rightly so. Plus it was funny. Strom Thurmond's black daughter? You can't make stuff up like that.

Message edited by author 2009-07-04 04:30:43.
07/04/2009 05:55:32 AM · #97
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by zxaar:

Yes it is selfdefense but according to your arguement - irrespective of what other person did, it should be judged on what he did and not on what others did, it should be crime. And wrong thing to do.

No, that is not my standpoint at all. Don't assume you know what I mean, you obviously don't.


Okey so you did not say that regardless of circumstances and regardless of otherperson involved.

Here is what you said.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:



The bottom line is, regardless of circumstances , if he slept with another woman while he was married to his wife, he violated the marriage contract, and like it or not, it's wrong.

It may be able to be rationalized and understood by the majority to be justified.....maybe she slept around first, or she was physically & mentally abusive, but until there is a divorce or annullment, it's adultery, a breach of the marital contract, and by the accepted behaviors of our American society today, WRONG!


Seems like you are saying that regardless of what other person did, if he slept around it was wrong.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:


Originally posted by zxaar:

So pick which way you want to go, crime (and wrong) or not.


Okay...crime=wrong

Self-defense is *NOT* a crime.



Based on your above argument.
Killing a human being is crime.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The bottom line is, regardless of circumstances

Crime is wrong.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:


Originally posted by zxaar:

Nope, my opinion is wait and see things completely taking regard to who did what. Which is what neophyte is been saying all along. I do not think he aproved adultery, he merely said that rather than jumping to conclusions see things fully. The things sometimes what they look on face may turned out to be completely different when investigated.

I stated previously that you should form your own opinion.

He still broke the law and admitted it.


Same way the person who killed other person broke the law.
(he will only be acquitted after investigation. That is knowing full fact. Which is what me and other person arguing with you. Not whether adultery is wrong or not.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:


I'm REALLY having a hard time seeing why you guys cannot follow this process.


Oh we understand much more than you assume, its just that our attitude is "innocent till proven guilty". A thing that is difficult for you to fathom.
We also think that things are not black or white there is a grey matter in between.
07/04/2009 07:01:56 AM · #98
Originally posted by zxaar:

Here is what you said.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:



The bottom line is, regardless of circumstances , if he slept with another woman while he was married to his wife, he violated the marriage contract, and like it or not, it's wrong.

It may be able to be rationalized and understood by the majority to be justified.....maybe she slept around first, or she was physically & mentally abusive, but until there is a divorce or annullment, it's adultery, a breach of the marital contract, and by the accepted behaviors of our American society today, WRONG!


Seems like you are saying that regardless of what other person did, if he slept around it was wrong.

Yes!

That is exactly what I have been saying the whole time.
07/04/2009 07:02:46 AM · #99
Originally posted by zxaar:

Oh we understand much more than you assume, its just that our attitude is "innocent till proven guilty". A thing that is difficult for you to fathom.
We also think that things are not black or white there is a grey matter in between.

So.....a confession on national television isn't enough for you?
07/04/2009 01:44:51 PM · #100
Originally posted by theSaj:

No, no, no...he's a Republican. That's only allowable for Democrats. Must attack!!! ATTACK!!!!

Talk about looking at the world through Fox-colored glasses....

The whole "It's sad for the family, and that's all it should be" stance is ridiculous. Moral relativism? The point is that once again politicians who have held themselves up as beacons of morality have shown they are as vulnerable to temptation as everyone else! Governor Sanford voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment against President Clinton citing the need for "moral legitimacy and integrity." Senator John Ensign was a Promise Keeper who declaimed on the "sanctity of marriage" when promoting the Defense of Marriage act (as I believe did restroom lingerer Larry Craig).

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 12:04:17 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 12:04:17 AM EDT.