Somehow No One Seems To Think



"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0ed25806-fd15-4e32-9f6a-fb9d833820c5@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 3:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Tom go read through what's happening, over at SFTT and talk to me
> then. I'm only going on 25 years experience, and direct contact with
> the military.


Bill, you know damn well that I respect you and your work but when you start
off on these flights of fancy concerning body armor and added armor on armor
cars and the like I have to wonder if you've ever lived in the real world or
actually believe that the military should stop everything they're doing
every time something considered by someone as an improvement in military
arms hits the market.
 
On Mar 30, 7:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:0ed25806-fd15-4e32-9f6a-fb9d833820c5@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 3:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > Tom go read through what's happening, over at SFTT and talk to me
> > then. I'm only going on 25 years experience, and direct contact with
> > the military.

>
> Bill, you know damn well that I respect you and your work but when you start
> off on these flights of fancy concerning body armor and added armor on armor
> cars and the like I have to wonder if you've ever lived in the real world or
> actually believe that the military should stop everything they're doing
> every time something considered by someone as an improvement in military
> arms hits the market.

I've been avoiding this, but here goes:
These are current headlines and stories from SFTT.org
03-21-2008 - Roger Charles
More details: latest test of Interceptor Body Armor

More details: latest test of Interceptor Body Armor --3 Out of 6
Shots Penetrated Both Front and Back ISAPI Plates (Level III+)

An Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) with an Improved Small Arms Protective
Insert (ISAPI) plates failed, and failed miserably, on March 13 when
the second, third, fourth, fifth and six rounds of .308 caliber hollow
point fully penetrated the front protective plate.

Full Story Here

03-13-2008 - Roger Charles
Body Armor Issued to Front Line Troops Obliterated
in New Side by Side Tests of Dragon Skin


03-8-2008 - SFTT STAFF
Commandant of the Marine Corps Criticizes
New Marine Corps Body Armor -- Halts Contract

Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway wants to know who authorized the
costly purchase of the new Modular Tactical Vest (MTV), and has
ordered Marine procurement officers to halt the rest of an unfilled
order



BREAKING--PEO-Soldier Test Director, Karl Masters, Under Investigation

MORE LATE BREAKING NEWS-- Karl Masters, a key participant in the
Army's testing and claim that Dragon Skin Armor failed in May of 2006,
admits to a Fresno TV Reporter he is under investigation. Army PAO
Admits To Being Clueless About Investigation. When notified by Fresno
TV KSee 24 that Masters admitted to being under investigation, the
Army PAO tried to contact Masters without success. The following video
is related to the previous story of the attempt to auction the vests
on Ebay. This is the same group of vests that PEO-Soldier claimed had
failed "catastrophically" in a 55 minute rebuttal to NBC news in June
of 2007. It's not certain if the vests for sale on eBay had actually
been tested.

See the the Full Story here.

LATE BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!

LATE BREAKING NEWS-- Multiple federal law enforcement agencies, to
include Department of Homeland Security, are interviewing source of
eBay posting for probable illegal sale of restricted/sensitive defense
technology and possible illegal sale of government property (Dragon
Skin body armor). Source is cooperating and "naming names" as
investigation heats up -- who gave source Dragon Skin vests, and where
did PEO-Soldier's custody of critical evidence in criminal
investigation break down?

MORE PROBLEMS FOR PEO-SOLDIER:
-- Dept. of Justice (DOJ) Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) Task Force
confirmed.
-- Army CID joins the body armor scandal (as a potential suspect, not
as an investigating agency)
-- Compromise of restricted/sensitive defense technology and possible
illegal sale of government property (Dragon Skin body armor)



These are just from SFTT. Go to the front page and start there.
Did you read the stuff on KBR and the water?

I wish I was making the **** up.
Bill C
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5233b28a-c111-4a3f-a5de-52ad052478af@c26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

"Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway wants to know who authorized the
costly purchase of the new Modular Tactical Vest (MTV), and has
ordered Marine procurement officers to halt the rest of an unfilled
order"

What more do you want? Do you suppose that mistakes aren't going to be made?
 
On Mar 30, 8:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5233b28a-c111-4a3f-a5de-52ad052478af@c26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway wants to know who authorized the
> costly purchase of the new Modular Tactical Vest (MTV), and has
> ordered Marine procurement officers to halt the rest of an unfilled
> order"
>
> What more do you want? Do you suppose that mistakes aren't going to be made?


Tom how about the supposedly tested, and destroyed vests ending up on
E-Bay? There's a ton of fraud, waste, and patronage in the military
contracting system, along with flat out fraud in the body armor stuff.
Mistakes are one thing and are going to happen, the **** that's going
on now is nothing new, but it's still going on. Armorers are
rebuilding Vietnam era m-14s for some of the troops now, lots of units
have gone back to colt 1911 style .45acp pistols instead of the 9mm
berettas. What's going on is what's always gone on, politics, fantasy,
and corruption take precedence over what the troops need. Billy
Mitchell got court martialled fighting for air power, Patton and
others had to fight like hell for armor, the navy fought the idea of
carriers. There's a long list of pet weapons, and systems that were
kept alive, some despite the Pentagon fighting them that got foisted
on the troops.
There've been a handful of people who didn't play the game, like Walt
Krulak and they got ridden out ASAP or had their policies reversed
soon after.
His comment that he could get better, lighter, cheaper, basic
equipment at REI than through his supply chain was exactly correct,
and resulted in serious restructuring of how they bought stuff, at
least for a few years.
Like the politics over CSAR-X, and KC-X programs? Have you heard the
talk about rolling the AF back into the other services, due to it's
own incompetence? I know more than a few pilots cheering for that to
happen.
What should be absolutely amazing is how well the folks on the ground
do the job in spite of the senior chain of command, but it's typical,
not unusual. They actually brought my neighbor and former little
league coach out of retirement to fix the National Guard here in Mass.
a while ago because he was one of the few people that had the
credibility, total lack of politics, credentials, and attitude to do
the job.
http://www.ngb.army.mil/ngbgomo/library/bio/keefe_gw.htm
It's not un-American to fight the system for the benefit of the
troops. Actually most of our great leaders have done just that.
Bill C
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7bda5735-77e8-40ba-ba3a-9acc0e4cfe1e@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom how about the supposedly tested, and destroyed vests ending up on
> E-Bay? There's a ton of fraud, waste, and patronage in the military
> contracting system, along with flat out fraud in the body armor stuff.


I'm not disagreeing with you but do you really think that's anything new?

What I'm surprised at is that you don't seem to be able to separate the
criminal activity that's been allowed to run rampant in the government end
of the military and the responsibility of commanders on the ground.

I'm sure that we're both for serious criminal actions against those
responsible for this stuff and we both know that it ain't the President
that's responsible for it.
 
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> WTF, Kunich. Even for you, this is batshit crazy.
>> We are talking crazier than the homeless guy downtown
>> with a cardboard sign about how the President is spying
>> on him (OK, I'm not sure he actually is crazy, or wrong,
>> but the rest of you know what I mean).

>
> If you recall, I wrote him to scan the internets, especially
> news sites, to allow him to reference current events. With
> this being an election year I'm not particularly surprised.


I can hardly wait for October.
 
Mike Baldwin distorts a quote of Pail G.'s post to claim that Howard has victimized
him and at the same time avoid answering the question about his ethically poor
quoting of another one of Paul's post to make it appear that Paul is anti-American!

> Howard copies a _direct_ quote, and the uses it out of context to call
> me a racist!
>
> >You said:   "Next, simply free the slaves... Again this
> >option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian

> reasons."
> >You clearly said the slave owners kept their slaves "for
> >humanitarian reasons". It doesn't get much more racist than that."


Mike, that is a bad snipping job of my post - those were Paul's word's, some
quoting you, the last two sentences being his commentary on your post. That's why I
linked to the entire post in the footnote.

> And Howard, I've yet to say "slave owners kept slaves for
> humanitarian reasons".


No one said you did - we understand precisely who you are saying was advocating
keeping them.

> I fully expect to be mocked by modern day Liberals ignorant of the
> period correct language, terms and phrases.


Mike, you appear to think that you're the only one who has read any US history.
That would be a mistake on your part.

> I'll never understand how Liberals can lie, even to themselves though, just in
> order to re-write history.


Right, that's a trait that libertarians and conservatives would never exhibit.
(Snicker...)

But once more, Mike: Don't you see that chopping one sentence out of Paul's post
was done precisely to be inflammatory? You seem to be a guy who prefers to take the
high road but that particular stunt, whether you think Paul did you badly or not, is
poor form. Furthermore, trying to twist it around so that you can talk about me
rather than address the issue I brought up is evasive and dishonest.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7bda5735-77e8-40ba-ba3a-9acc0e4cfe1e@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom how about the supposedly tested, and destroyed vests ending up on
> > E-Bay? There's a ton of fraud, waste, and patronage in the military
> > contracting system, along with flat out fraud in the body armor stuff.

>
> I'm not disagreeing with you but do you really think that's anything new?
>
> What I'm surprised at is that you don't seem to be able to separate the
> criminal activity that's been allowed to run rampant in the government end
> of the military and the responsibility of commanders on the ground.


Sorry, tom, But *you* are unable to separate the criminal activity that goes on
particularly in the procurement end of the military from your own partisan denial
that the Republicans can do no wrong.

> I'm sure that we're both for serious criminal actions against those
> responsible for this stuff and we both know that it ain't the President
> that's responsible for it.


But if it happened under Clinton you'd be saying the opposite.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> WTF, Kunich. Even for you, this is batshit crazy.
> >> We are talking crazier than the homeless guy downtown
> >> with a cardboard sign about how the President is spying
> >> on him (OK, I'm not sure he actually is crazy, or wrong,
> >> but the rest of you know what I mean).

> >
> > If you recall, I wrote him to scan the internets, especially
> > news sites, to allow him to reference current events. With
> > this being an election year I'm not particularly surprised.

>
> I can hardly wait for October.


I can hardly wait for November 5. When the results come back as bad for Tom as
they appear to be headed, he may run away and hide for a while.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:af35f894-59d9-4b94-8a12-797b200841d3@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> Where did you get this no-money idea? The early USA
> wasn't some kind of primitive hunter-gatherer society.
> They were colonials of the British Empire and understood
> money perfectly well. The Continental Congress and the
> states started printing paper money around 1775 to finance
> the Revolutionary War. So there was money even before
> there was a fully independent nation. If anything, there
> was too much money, as in too many different issuing
> authorities; after the Constitution was set up in 1789, they
> rationalized it into a single currency and central bank
> (an arrogation of federal authority that Greg White has
> never gotten over, but I digress).


It's time for a gratuitous Frankling reference. Being a printer, Ben
Franklin was very into paper money since he had the contract to print it.
As Ben put it, "doing well by doing good."

http://www.librarycompany.org/BFWriter/job.htm

So even before they won the war, the colonies had paper money.

I think what Tom meant was that if they did have money, it didn't look
like the money we have now, so the slaves wouldn't have recognized it as
money, which is why they had to remain slaves until the federal
government got around to printing $50 and $100 with pictures of Grant and
Franklin, respectively, on them (which leads me to wonder why these bills
get called "dead presidents" since Franklin wasn't ever a president).

--
Bill Asher
 
In article <[email protected]>, William Asher <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:af35f894-59d9-4b94-8a12-797b200841d3@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Where did you get this no-money idea? The early USA
> > wasn't some kind of primitive hunter-gatherer society.
> > They were colonials of the British Empire and understood
> > money perfectly well. The Continental Congress and the
> > states started printing paper money around 1775 to finance
> > the Revolutionary War. So there was money even before
> > there was a fully independent nation. If anything, there
> > was too much money, as in too many different issuing
> > authorities; after the Constitution was set up in 1789, they
> > rationalized it into a single currency and central bank
> > (an arrogation of federal authority that Greg White has
> > never gotten over, but I digress).

>
> It's time for a gratuitous Frankling reference. Being a printer, Ben
> Franklin was very into paper money since he had the contract to print it.
> As Ben put it, "doing well by doing good."
>
> http://www.librarycompany.org/BFWriter/job.htm
>
> So even before they won the war, the colonies had paper money.
>
> I think what Tom meant was that if they did have money, it didn't look
> like the money we have now, so the slaves wouldn't have recognized it as
> money, which is why they had to remain slaves until the federal
> government got around to printing $50 and $100 with pictures of Grant and
> Franklin, respectively, on them (which leads me to wonder why these bills
> get called "dead presidents" since Franklin wasn't ever a president).


See? It's all about the Benjamins...

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
[email protected] wrote:
>> WTF, Kunich. Even for you, this is batshit crazy. We are talking
>> crazier than the homeless guy downtown with a cardboard sign about how
>> the President is spying on him (OK, I'm not sure he actually is crazy,
>> or wrong, but the rest of you know what I mean).


Bob Schwartz wrote:
> If you recall, I wrote him to scan the internets, especially news sites,
> to allow him to reference current events. With this being an election year
> I'm not particularly surprised.


"I'm sorry Bob, I'm afraid I can't do that".

The TOM 9000 series is exhibiting stability problems.
 
On Mar 30, 12:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> > WTF, Kunich.  Even for you, this is batshit crazy.

>
> Too bad you'd fallen from someone capable of discussion to someone that
> reacts like some sort of idiot.
>
> > First, even if there had been no money, what does that
> > have to do with making it impossible to free slaves.

>
> Here's a hint - it was already illegal to import slaves. Instead they were
> importing people who signed contracts to work several years to pay off their
> transportation fees. These were overwhelmingly white Brits and something
> like 80% of them died worked to death and those who survived often had to
> sign another contract to find work at all and get fed. Slaves were an
> investment and hence were treated a great deal better than these contract
> laborers.
>
> I wonder why you would rather go off into outer space arguing about total
> **** instead of using this group to have sane discussions. You used to be
> one of the more intelligent posters here and now you're something akin to a
> moron.


So you admit that your lies about the currency issued by the
Continental Congress were nothing but Loyalist propaganda
to demoralize our soldiers by claiming there is no money
to fund our war for freedom against the Tory tyranny,
and that you are an agent acting on behalf of the King
against freedom for the American States.

Ben



P.S. Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution prohibited
the Congress from banning the slave trade before 1808,
although it was too delicate to actually mention slavery,
referring instead to "Importation of such Persons."
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html , 1st paragraph.
U.S. citizens were banned from engaging in slave
trade to foreign ports in 1790. But the only penalties
were fines and illegal slave trade continued well
past 1808.
 
On Mar 31, 12:08 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > There wasn't any MONEY at that time. Got that?
> > Without money everything is settled on the BARTER SYSTEM.

>
> http://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States/dp/0945466331/


Why would you want to go and screw up a perfectly good argument by
throwing in real facts and research? Might not matter in this
discussion though...
Bill C
 
Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, William Asher
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:af35f894-59d9-4b94-8a12-797b200841d3@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>> > Where did you get this no-money idea? The early USA
>> > wasn't some kind of primitive hunter-gatherer society.
>> > They were colonials of the British Empire and understood
>> > money perfectly well. The Continental Congress and the
>> > states started printing paper money around 1775 to finance
>> > the Revolutionary War. So there was money even before
>> > there was a fully independent nation. If anything, there
>> > was too much money, as in too many different issuing
>> > authorities; after the Constitution was set up in 1789, they
>> > rationalized it into a single currency and central bank
>> > (an arrogation of federal authority that Greg White has
>> > never gotten over, but I digress).

>>
>> It's time for a gratuitous Frankling reference. Being a printer, Ben
>> Franklin was very into paper money since he had the contract to print
>> it. As Ben put it, "doing well by doing good."
>>
>> http://www.librarycompany.org/BFWriter/job.htm
>>
>> So even before they won the war, the colonies had paper money.
>>
>> I think what Tom meant was that if they did have money, it didn't
>> look like the money we have now, so the slaves wouldn't have
>> recognized it as money, which is why they had to remain slaves until
>> the federal government got around to printing $50 and $100 with
>> pictures of Grant and Franklin, respectively, on them (which leads me
>> to wonder why these bills get called "dead presidents" since Franklin
>> wasn't ever a president).

>
> See? It's all about the Benjamins...
>


And Hamilton was never a president either. Dead presidents. Right.

Has anyone ever thought that what might be going on is that we are reading
posts from a Tom Kunich who lives in an alternate universe? A universe
where money wasn't adopted in the USA until 1955, where CO2 doesn't act as
a radiatively important trace gas, and where in general what we consider
the laws of physics simply don't apply? What might be happening is that
the broadband backbone added one more router somewhere and in doing so
gained enough topological complexity to cross interdimensional space in
places (sort of like the subway system in "A Subway Named Möbius"). So
what is happening is that the posts from the Tom Kunich from our universe
are going to the other universe and we get the posts from theirs (or vice
versa). This leaves Tom bewildered and angry because he's simply stating
what he knows to be true, but for us it isn't. I mean, he could still be a
bot even, just a bot from a different universe.

--
Bill Asher
 
On Mar 30, 6:36 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> A huge part is, still, a hatred of "liberals" for the abuse the
> military, and Vietnam vets took at the hands of the "liberals" when
> they were there, and came back home.


For the record, I did a 4 year hitch during the Vietnam war, doing my
duty while George Bush was AWOL. No one ever abused me, nor did
anyone I served with ever mention being abused for being in the
military. And I spent several years in Marin, surrounded by the most
liberal of the liberal. Given human nature, I'm sure somewhere and
someplace someone did or said uncalled for things to someone in
uniform, but it's been greatly exaggerated for political purposes.

In fact I went over to Napa when George Wuss was there on one of his
record-setting vacations. There was one Marine there in uniform,
supporting his Wuss-in-chief, and a zillion protesters. Lots of people
chatted with him, but no one was rude or abusive. That's reality- it's
the conservatives that wave guns and spout threats. The liberal slogan
during the Vietnam war was "make love not war", and by and large they
did.
-Paul
 
On Mar 30, 8:36 am, RonSonic <[email protected]>
>
> I think far too many libertarians fail to realize the foundations of peace and
> order necessary to make their philosophy possible. Not that they are wrong to
> resent the intrusiveness of the modern state, they are wrong to not acknowledge
> the need of state power in some things. Sorta like the pacifists who don't
> realize how dead, raped and robbed they would be in the absence of someone
> willing to do violence on their behalf. Sometimes it takes a big, ugly someone,
> and that someone is the state. Indeed keep the thing on a leash, but don't
> complain that your guard dog ***** the lawn. Or do, but with the understanding
> that this is its nature.
>


Yeah- libertarians don't think thru what things would actually be like
in the libertarian utopia where, for example, there would be no drug
laws or gun laws. Unlimited supplies of meth, heavy machine guns,
RPG's, claymore mines, hand grenades.... no thanks. But if that's
your idea of utopia, you can simply move to Somalia.

-Paul
 
[email protected] wrote:
> So you admit that your lies about the currency issued by the Continental
> Congress were nothing but Loyalist propaganda to demoralize our soldiers
> by claiming there is no money to fund our war for freedom against the Tory
> tyranny


You could just have voted labour or even liberal democrat.
 
On Mar 30, 4:51 am, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> Howard copies a _direct_ quote, and the uses it out of context to call
> me a racist!
>
>
>
> >You said: "Next, simply free the slaves... Again this
> >option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian

> reasons."
> >You clearly said the slave owners kept their slaves "for
> >humanitarian reasons". It doesn't get much more racist than that."

>
> Again Howard, the point _IS_ not all _abolitionist_ had the _slaves_
> best interest in mind in opposing slavery.


No Mike, you are trying to change the subject. Let me refresh your
memory:
On Mar 23, 4:27 am, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

"For the past 35 years I've been a self study of our nations framers &
founders. I've yet to "discover" a flaw in their _original_ works."
I then responded: "Um.... slavery?"

Sure, there were reasons why slavery was written into the
constitution, and the motivations of SOME of the abolitionists weren't
purely about the abominable nature of slavery, but none of that
eliminates my point which was simply that the original constitution
was flawed. Therefore, it may be true that YOU couldn't discover any
flaws, but that doesn't mean they weren't there, and I gave the
example of slavery. It's still a great document, and most of the
ideas were so liberal they were literally revolutionary in their day,
but the conservative aspects like the inclusion of slavery were none
the less abominable.

That is the origin of our dispute. You said you couldn't discover a
flaw in the constitution, I pointed out several that were apparent to
me, including slavery. This gets at your nature. You're gullible.
You're a follower, not a leader. If you're told to drink the koolaid,
you drink the koolaid, no questions asked. I'm telling you there is
cyanide in that koolaid and you're avoiding that issue by flailing
around and bringing up all kinds of other issues, like this:

> Within this tangent of the thread, there's been _NO_ comment on the
> Lincoln / Springfield address that I've now quoted twice.


That's not the issue. The issue is that the constitution as originally
written was flawed, but you are unable to admit it.

> And Howard, I've yet to say "slave owners kept slaves for
> humanitarian reasons".


You said: "Next, simply free the slaves... Again this option was not
chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons."

That is not a fact, that is your interpretation of the facts. The fact
is that slave owners kept slaves to make money, and they didn't free
them because they wanted to keep making money from them.

So you did say "slave owners kept slaves for humanitarian reasons", an
OUTRAGEOUS interpretation of history.

> I fully expect to be mocked by modern day Liberals ignorant of the
> period correct language, terms and phrases. I'll never understand how
> Liberals can lie, even to themselves though, just in order to re-write
> history.
>
> ....yes, we landed in Bosnia under sniper fire...


Yeah right, and we invaded Iraq because they were about to attack us
with WMD's. Now which of those cost 4,000+ American lives and
trillions of tax dollars, and which of them cost us nothing? You
totally lack common sense, you are just a follower who parrots the
party line.
-Paul
 

Similar threads

A
Replies
7
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Q