Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
The Media & Abbott (Read 5609 times)
Gist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #60 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 10:15am
 
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 9:22am:
Gist wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:13am:
Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm:
All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation.

Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that.


Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance:

http://www.smh.com.au/

I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section.

Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section.

Can you help me out and point me to it please?


You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which?


Not when it comes from you because then I know it's completely horse manure. But when a supposedly reliable journalist writes an article in a supposedly respectable paper informing me about events that I have absolutely no knowledge of then YES, I expect to be told if he's just making crap up. Otherwise how would I know?
Back to top
 

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)
 
IP Logged
 
Prevailing
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #61 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 10:24am
 
I cant emphasize enough that Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, Greg Combet, Sarah Hanson-Young, Milne, Adam Bandt and Tasmanian Premier Lara Gidding are just citizens like you, so if they are abusing their power in the parliament, imposing their personal ethics and ideological beliefs and violating your constitutional rights with massive reforms by by passing the appropriate constitutional mechanisms like referendums then sue their feaking 'rses off!!!! Smiley Smiley
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 8th, 2012 at 11:01am by Prevailing »  

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 59987
Here
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #62 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:36pm
 
FriYAY wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 2:51pm:
Dnarever wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 2:15pm:
FriYAY wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:29pm:
How does allowing people like Andrew Bolt the right to racially vilify and degrade Aboriginal people by removing protection from the racial discrimination act count as free speech.....Australia has laws against inciting hatred against minorities.....Why does Abbott want to allow racism to be protected by free speech???

3DS



The so called Abo’s were only upset that their money ticket was being questioned.
DS




Rubbish - Bolt clearly named people making obviously untrue derogitory claims about them.

He was very lucky that they didn't go after him for defamation and compensation as well.

Why do you think his own media outlet shut him down in the end -



Oh boohoo. I say he was right. Most of these people are parasites that do nothing for indigenous people. They are in it for what they can get for themselves and they’ll claim black/white when it suits.

Bolt no longer writes for the Herald Sun! Or are you deliberately being misleading to make a point? – calm down, you are hysterical (both meanings)

11DS


I say he was right

Too bad that the Judge said he was wrong and it very obviously the case.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dsmithy70
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #63 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm
 
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?
Back to top
 

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #64 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm
 
Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 10:15am:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 9:22am:
Gist wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:13am:
Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm:
All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation.

Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that.


Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance:

http://www.smh.com.au/

I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section.

Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section.

Can you help me out and point me to it please?


You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which?


Not when it comes from you because then I know it's completely horse manure. But when a supposedly reliable journalist writes an article in a supposedly respectable paper informing me about events that I have absolutely no knowledge of then YES, I expect to be told if he's just making crap up. Otherwise how would I know?


Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #65 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm
 
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?


There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.

Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dsmithy70
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #66 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm
 
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?


There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.

Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.



Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then??
"Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt.
Quote:
Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.

The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct.



If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines?


The numpty can't even get his arguments straight.
Back to top
 

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento
 
IP Logged
 
Gist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #67 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:51pm
 
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well?


Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence.

Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference.
Back to top
 

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 59987
Here
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #68 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:56pm
 
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?


There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.

Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.


He was found guilty of making derogitary statments about people which were untrue.

I would think that the thrust of his story was very much diminished when we found that he needed to tell lies about people in order to support his opinion.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #69 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:07pm
 
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?


There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.

Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.



Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then??
"Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt.
Quote:
Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.

The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct.



If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines?


The numpty can't even get his arguments straight.


Im not sure why you are getting your panties in a twist over Abbott supporting Bolt. Is he not permitted to agree with a media person? Is not one of the most fundamental rights we have the right to express an opinion?  Sometimes Bolt is wrong, most times right. Alan Jones is only ever right by accident.

Would you be having the same angst if Gillard was supporting an opinion writer who liked her? The problem is that even the labor-leaning Laurie Oakes cant find anything credibly positive to say about her. well thats not Bolts fault and it certainly isnt Abbott's.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #70 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:12pm
 
Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:51pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well?


Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence.

Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference.


Claims of education in a forum like this are utterly worthless as you can be like lastnail and bobby forever claiming this or that. The real validation of such claims is the content and conduct of your posting. That is what reveals your charcter as well as your education.

You have demonstrated truly lamentable standards of comprehension, often completely misunderstanding the posters message and failing to get the thrust of the message. Also, your mathematical ability is at times truly primitive.

If you have a degree it could only be a BA in art history or something equally worthless like Gender Studies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dsmithy70
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #71 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:19pm
 
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:07pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?


There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.

Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.



Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then??
"Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt.
Quote:
Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.

The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct.



If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines?


The numpty can't even get his arguments straight.


Im not sure why you are getting your panties in a twist over Abbott supporting Bolt. Is he not permitted to agree with a media person? Is not one of the most fundamental rights we have the right to express an opinion?  Sometimes Bolt is wrong, most times right. Alan Jones is only ever right by accident.

Would you be having the same angst if Gillard was supporting an opinion writer who liked her? The problem is that even the labor-leaning Laurie Oakes cant find anything credibly positive to say about her. well thats not Bolts fault and it certainly isnt Abbott's.


I'm not, but his case is being put forward as an example as why we should change our racial vilification laws, by Abbott not me.
I support the main thrust of Flinklesteins report & it's recommendations.
You & Abbott don't, not on any intellectual grounds just that the media at this current time is pasting Gillard, pity you don't think beyond next week.

Back to top
 

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento
 
IP Logged
 
Gist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #72 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:22pm
 
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:12pm:
Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:51pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well?


Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence.

Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference.


Claims of education in a forum like this are utterly worthless as you can be like lastnail and bobby forever claiming this or that. The real validation of such claims is the content and conduct of your posting. That is what reveals your charcter as well as your education.

You have demonstrated truly lamentable standards of comprehension, often completely misunderstanding the posters message and failing to get the thrust of the message. Also, your mathematical ability is at times truly primitive.

If you have a degree it could only be a BA in art history or something equally worthless like Gender Studies.


In other words, you don't have a feckin' clue. I could be telling the truth ... or completely making it up. How would you know? And of course you have absolutely every reason to doubt me so you are looking for the flaws.

Your Joe Blow reading the SMH or the Smellograph also wouldn't know what happened at a political rally in another city or on an asylum seeker boat out in the middle of the ocean. How would they know? They take the word of the journalist. And they are NOT on any guard. So if the journo tells them complete bullcrap how would they know?

Oh of course! The "context".  Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #73 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:25pm
 
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:19pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:07pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?


There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.

Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.



Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then??
"Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt.
Quote:
Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.

The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct.



If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines?


The numpty can't even get his arguments straight.


Im not sure why you are getting your panties in a twist over Abbott supporting Bolt. Is he not permitted to agree with a media person? Is not one of the most fundamental rights we have the right to express an opinion?  Sometimes Bolt is wrong, most times right. Alan Jones is only ever right by accident.

Would you be having the same angst if Gillard was supporting an opinion writer who liked her? The problem is that even the labor-leaning Laurie Oakes cant find anything credibly positive to say about her. well thats not Bolts fault and it certainly isnt Abbott's.


I'm not, but his case is being put forward as an example as why we should change our racial vilification laws, by Abbott not me.
I support the main thrust of Flinklesteins report & it's recommendations.
You & Abbott don't, not on any intellectual grounds just that the media at this current time is pasting Gillard, pity you don't think beyond next week.



The time to do media regulation changes is not when youare a govt being hammered by all and sundry. You look petulant, sound mean-spirited and act like you are bad-losers. And that would be pretty hard to deny.

Australian media has its problems but by world standards we are pretty good. The enquiry sounds like an attempt by a woefully unpopular govt to minimise the exposure of its failings. The time to do things like that propose was under Rudd when he was mega popular, but funny enough... there were no problems with the media then.

Gillard sounds like a petulant child complaining about 'people talking about her'. WEll perhaps she could try doing something right, something popular or something competent. Then the media might actually have something nice to say about her. laurie Oakes is deserate for a good new story about her. As usual, Labor is shooting the messenger rather than improving the message.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: The Media & Abbott
Reply #74 - Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:27pm
 
Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:22pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:12pm:
Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:51pm:
gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well?


Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence.

Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference.


Claims of education in a forum like this are utterly worthless as you can be like lastnail and bobby forever claiming this or that. The real validation of such claims is the content and conduct of your posting. That is what reveals your charcter as well as your education.

You have demonstrated truly lamentable standards of comprehension, often completely misunderstanding the posters message and failing to get the thrust of the message. Also, your mathematical ability is at times truly primitive.

If you have a degree it could only be a BA in art history or something equally worthless like Gender Studies.


In other words, you don't have a feckin' clue. I could be telling the truth ... or completely making it up. How would you know? And of course you have absolutely every reason to doubt me so you are looking for the flaws.

Your Joe Blow reading the SMH or the Smellograph also wouldn't know what happened at a political rally in another city or on an asylum seeker boat out in the middle of the ocean. How would they know? They take the word of the journalist. And they are NOT on any guard. So if the journo tells them complete bullcrap how would they know?

Oh of course! The "context".  Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


So was this your attempt to show the online world that you are a dual degreed educated intelligent person? If it was, it was an EPIC FAIL.

And surprise, surprise, I dont read the SMH or telegraph. That would require that I live in Sydney - which I dont.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print