HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Two Discernment Websites Cease Publication on the Web

Orginally published on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 9:49 PM
by Todd Rhoades

As many of you know, I've picked a few fights every now and then when I feel that some of the 'discerning ministry' have crossed the line. Well, it seems that two of my favorite watchdoggie websites are down, at least for now.

The first one is rather sad... and I would ask you to pray for Jim Bulbitz. Jim publishes OldTruth.com, and is having some serious health issues. In fact, he needs to have a liver transplant. He shares the news at OldTruth. His health issues will cause him to stop new posts, at least for then next few months. You know, I have disagreed with many of the things (probably most) that Jim has written over the years; and we've gone head to head on more than one occasion. But I can always say this: Jim was always open to dialouge, and always has treated me as a brother rather than a heretic. I appreciate that; and pray for you, Jim, that God will heal you completely.

The second website to go down happened this weekend. This was Ken Silva's "Apprising Ministries" website. Ken, on the other hand, is one of the more hard-nosed, confrontive bloggers I've run across on the net. Here's the short version of this one: Ken wrote a scathing piece on author Richard Abane in 2005 that Abane thought was slanderous. So, Richard contacted Ken's ISP and asked them to remove it from their servers. Ken's ISP looked at the article, and told Ken he'd have to remove that one post, or else they would take his site down complete. Ken, ever the martyr, decided to leave it up; and thus, lost his whole site (although I'm sure they're working frantically to get it back up on another host)...

My read on this one? 

Well… I think that Abanes should have probably tried to work with Ken to get the post taken down.  I have no doubt that Ken would NOT have taken it down, but it would have been the right first step, rather than going directly to Ken’s web host.  And once Ken got the notice from his web host, I think he should have tried to make the compromise happen. 

But instead, it’s a big mess… one that’s causing more than a bit of insanity.  Ken is crying ‘martyr’ and some of the watchdoggie sites are saying that this ‘first amendment issue’ will cause us all to eventually lose our right to criticize anyone online.

Bottom line:  Ken’s article had been on his site since 2005.  I really doubt that it was going to do Richard any harm.  Plus, Ken’s readers aren’t going to buy Richard’s books, regardless (sorry, Richard!)

You can catch more on this at Richard Abane’s website; or an update over at Lighthouse Trails or Slice of Laodicea.  I won’t link to them here, but you can find them easy enough if you’re that interested.

This SO MUCH takes away from everyone who is involved’s effectiveness.  I hate that.

Your thoughts?


This post has been viewed 4473 times so far.


  There are 266 Comments:

  • Posted by mnphysicist

    First prayers for Jim Bulbitz, whoa that is sad news.

    As far as the first ammendment issue, its an easy work around with off shore servers operating in a different legal climate, or select a host who takes a hard line on freedom of speech, even to the point of dealing with litigation if need be, but be aware it will likely cost more than most shared hosting packages

    In the US, having spent a few years on the tech side of this… if we get a legit complaint, based upon a cursory read, we’ve typically ask the author to pull it, and if they do not comply, we do so for them… its not worth the time and distraction, if the complaint has some level of legitamacy. Simply responding to a summons could run way over a customers annual billing, and thus calls are typically made on the conservative side in order to protect the best interests of the business..The vast majority of customers do not push limits… if they did, and were willing to pay, a different stance could be taken, but most of the time folks look for bargains.

    Then again… as Christians is there ever an excuse to push such limits to the point that a secular business views an author’s content on iffy grounds? Are we not called to stay far away from even the perception of sin? Granted there are theological underpinnings… reproof and correction in some cases, but that is not what a host looks at when making the call, ie they look at the potential for slander/defamation etc..  and if secular discernment is more critical than Christian discernment, I think we have a much bigger problem than a first ammendment issue. I do agree that the whole mess is a real effectiveness killer, and most certainly not a good witness.

  • Posted by Eugene Roberts

    I have beem following the Silva-Abanes saga with great concern. I think we should all pray and do all we can to help these two brothers to reach some sort of agreement.

    I wrote a comment over at CRN.Info and would like to repeat it here:

    I have a few suggestions that may help this situation in the positive direction. It may sound naive on my part because I believe that our brothers Ken and Richard will be able to reconcile. But if our not-so-good president, Thabo Mbeki, could get Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe to sign a document of intent to begin talks and shake hands in public, surely we can as Christians, with God on our side, convince Ken and Richard to talk and sort out their differences.

    Here are things that I think we can do to help:
    1. Stop writing on at who’s door the blame should be placed.
    2. Ask the ODM sites to do the same. If writers who have their respect can do it, it will be most helpful.
    3. Pray for Ken and Richard that God will work in both of their hearts to bring them together in a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation.
    4. Send them each messages asking them to consider reconciling with each other.
    5. Find someone who can be an arbitrator. This person will have to be respected by both (It might prove to be very difficult to find such a person).

    Just think of the wonderful testimony this can be if reconciliation happens and they can issue a press release together stating their forgiveness of each other and the agreement they have reached.

    The-naive-South-African-who-believes-what-happened-in-South-Africa-can-happen-in-the-internet-church-world.
    - Eugene

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    I followed this story a bit, too. It is perhaps true that Abanes should have contacted Silva personally first. Abanes claims that he KNOWS, based on way more contact with Silva than I’ve certainly ever had, that that would be of no use.

    Beyond that, just about everything that I’ve heard from Silva and those who agree with him is just ludicrous. This is NOT a first ammendment issue. When you have a Terms of Service (TOS) agreement with an ISP, you need to honor that agreement. That agreement included the understanding that if Ken posted something that violated the agreement that he could be shut down.

    From the misquotes, quotes out of context, and “questionably true” (at best, imho) comments that Ken has posted on his site, it is not surprising that somebody might find offense and consider something he writes slanderous. Somebody did, and the ISP reacted (and gave Ken a chance to take the article down.)

    The simple issue is that Silva violated his TOS agreement. This has nothing to do with the first ammendment, and if it gets blown up out of proportion, then I’ll have further evidence that Ken is only interested in making a stink, and not interested in “the truth”, at all.

    The “watchdog” has perhaps bitten the wrong man this time.

  • Posted by

    I think it is misleading to say that the ISP looked at the article in question and then decided to request that Ken remove the article. We simply do not know that for certain. It could be that the Ken’s ISP responded to the threat of a lawsuit and erred on the side of caution.

    I agree it is not a 1st amendment issue. The concern here is that Christians threatening lawsuits to blogs that they feel are offending them and the ISPs that host these blogs automatically caving in because they do not want to face the possibility of litigation. The ISPs are unwilling or unable to determine if the articles in question constitute slander or libel or break any laws.

    The question that remains unanswered here is this:

    Did Ken’s ISP request that the article be removed after a careful legal analysis OR did the ISP request that the article be taken down only because a lawsuit was threatened?

    The answer makes a critical difference in this situation.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Sam,

    We know that the ISP asked for the removal of the article. Their reasons for doing so are almost beside the point. Ken refused, knowing what the consequences were… the site went down… now he’s crying foul.

    Perhaps this time he will find an ISP with terms of service more amenable to his methodology. (I’m betting within 72 hours, because if I felt as passionately about something as Ken does, I’d be back up PRONTO.)

    I am frankly surprised that someone like Ken hasn’t been sued for slander yet. (because if it’s in “print” only on the web, I assume that it can’t be libel)

  • Posted by

    The ISP’s reasoning is not besides the point, it is the point. It is disconcerting if the ISP just caved to potential ligitation or did the ISP do their due diligence and really investigate the allegations in the complaint letter and then requested that Ken pull the article in question.

    Again, the answer has an effect of more far reaching implications for bloggers. I agree that Ken should have followed the TOS of the ISP. Again, do we know if Ken actually violated the TOS of the ISP?

    But I do agree, Ken should seek out an ISP and talk with its management and determine how they handle complaints and lawsuit threats.

    The complaint letter does actually state that Ken is guilty of libel

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    “The complaint letter does actually state that Ken is guilty of libel” a complaint I find eminently believable, in light of the history of apprising ministries.

  • Posted by

    Does anyone know if the article in question can be found elsewhere on the web?  I’ve been trying to find it to see just how “slanderous” the posting was, and no one has copied it, as far as I can tell, even including Ingrid at SoL.

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Brian L.

    I like Richard, but my question is along what Todd said about it being up there since 2005.

    It’s been up there that long and he’s just noticing it?  Apparently it hasn’t done the kind of damage he thinks it would.

    On the other hand, no one wants slanderous stuff about them printed anywhere, especially in the global setting of the internet.

    Brian L.

  • Posted by Matt
  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Thanks, Matt.

    I made a pdf of that article, because dinner is almost ready, so I’ll look at it tomorrow…

    but one thing I glanced out really stuck out.

    “From where I stand, it has now become clear to me that Mr. Abanes feels anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong”

    hello, pot… kettle calling…

  • Posted by Richard Abanes

    Todd: Plus, Ken’s readers aren’t going to buy Richard’s books, regardless (sorry, Richard!)

    ABANES: ROFL. No surprise to me. grin

    peace,

    RA

  • Posted by

    Richard:

    Glad to see you join the conversation here.  I was wondering if you would answer the questions that has come up several times now: why did it take you about three years before you decided to petition to have the article removed?  What prompted this action?

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Richard Abanes

    hey CS,

    Basically, there are FOUR several reasons I waited so long:

    1. Soon after the article went up, I left the world of interacting with the online apologetic/discernment camp—for two years! This was primarily due to the utter disgust I felt over how these so-called online “watchmen” were acting.

    SO, I went away, hoping and praying for two years that something would change. But much to my horror, two years later, things had only gotten worse. That brought me up to December 2007, when I again started interacting with the online apologetic/discernment camp.
    _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

    2. Back in 2005, no one was really even aware of that Ken Silva article, or aware of Ken Silva. There was no real reason to address it—few people would be influenced by it.

    But fast forward two years, and the online apologetic/discernment camp has grown and INFECTED (as in a disease) large segments of the Christian church with its hate, misuse of scripture, personal attacks, trumped up charges against fellow believers, divisiveness, half-truths, double-standards, hypocrisy, intolerance, and mean-spirited attempts to destroy the personal. professional, and ministerial reputation of those they see as “the enemy.”

    And THAT is exactly what the article by Ken Silva was intended to do. It was not written to critique my doctrine: theology, soteriology, eschatology, thanatology. It was meant to harm me personally. And that is not the only such article out there.

    So far, I have repeatedly posted a challenge online that no one, not even Ken Silva has taken up, and I’ll post it again here:

    “If Ken Silva wishes to place another article up titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES,” which actually critiques my theology, then my all means, I welcome it.”

    “I challenge ANYONE to find ANY criticisms, observations, corrections in that Ken Silva article that discusses my theology or doctrinal beliefs. Such material is not there. That article was personal in all its attacks. It was nothing more than an article deliberately designed to impugn my personal/professional integrity.”
    _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

    3. The popularity of that article had grown to the point where I felt it was indeed harming my personal, professional, and ministerial reputation. Consequently, something had to be done about it. And the step I took was actually VERY, VERY mild.

    Mr. Silva and his supporters have blown this matter WAY out of proportion, and to do so, they have had to resort to yet more misrepresentations of me, my actions, and my intentions.

    All the while Ken Silva has denied his own responsibility for having his original website deleted. I did NOT:

    A. File a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
    B. Threaten to file a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
    C. Contact an attorney about beginning a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.

    The truth is that I sent a simple email to Mr. Silva’s ISP requesting that they review ONE of his news articles because I felt it that it not only violated their TOS agreement, but was libelous and offensive in tone.

    Based on the article’s content, the ISP’s decision was to ask Mr. Silva to remove the article—or have his website deleted. He stubbornly refused to follow a simple request from the ISP with whom he had entered a TOS agreement. It was HIS willful defiance that caused his website to momentarily disappear.

    And now he and his and his so-called online “discerner” supporters are fueling an ever-growing controversy . They’ve turned it into an Internet circus. It’s gotten so intense, that I have been receiving emails filled with:

    - THREATS;
    - PROFANITY/OBSCENITY;
    - BIBLICAL CONDEMNATIONS;
    - ACCUSATIONS OF ME NOT BEING A CHRISTIAN;
    - FALSE ACCUSATIONS REGARDING MY ACTIONS

    And, of course, each email was from a Ken Silva devotee aghast at how I would come against such a man of God and try to destroy the Lord’s work (or some permutation of those sentiments).

    I think this has shown the fruit of people like Silva, and the online discernment/apologetic crowd. Walter Martin would hang his head in anguish at these people who have perverted what he started as a noble and necessary calling in the church: i.e., to “earnestly contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
    _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

    4. The time has come for these people to be held accountable and responsible for the unnecessary, unbiblical,and ungodly division in the Body of Christ that they have been causing. My email to Ken Silva’s ISP was as attempt to help bring about at least a modicum of accountability/responsibility. You see the reaction. What does that tell us all?

    Richard Abanes

    For my perspective and far more information, please read:

    Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda
    MORE ARGUMENTS: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks!
    Ken Silva - More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Thanks, Richard.

    If indeed you merely did what you mentioned above, then of course it is Ken’s own fault his site is down (for now). I’ve read parts (but not all) of the article,

    But you’ve opened quite the can of worms, as you can tell by the communications you’ve received from some of Silva’s supporters. (Ken, make a note, perhaps you could communicate to these folks a little more about biblical ideas like “living at peace with everyone” and avoiding profanity and the like with as much vim and vigor as you employ in the condemnation of those who disagree with your particular brand of Christian theology.)

    I fear you’ve only seen the beginning of this, and I fear that in the days to come we will see a lot of “truth-twisting”. Please be encouraged and hold on to the high road at ALL costs!

  • Posted by

    Richard:

    Thank you for the response.

    For the record, I like Ken Silva, Ingrid Schuleter, and many other ODMs that are online.  I stand vehemently opposed to the purpose-driven programs and ideology that you support.  I know that you and I are perhaps diametrically opposed on many things in evangelicalism. 

    But you know what?  You were right for what you did.

    I took your challenge of finding anything resembling an argument of your doctrinal and theological positions in that article, and could not find anything substantive.  And, the more time I took in reading it and looking for evidence, the more I found myself agreeing with you that the article bordered on being slanderous.

    The points that you listed for why you chose to contact the ISP and requested the article be removed made sense to me.  The hiatus from doing things online, the fact that you are getting more widespread publicity and things like this could defame you, and the fact that he did not tackle any theology or doctrine head-on are all reasonable, rational explanations for your actions (I heard you on the Gino Gerasi show in Denver the other day, BTW.)

    With this good explanation of things and my examination of the article, I agree that you were in the right.  Even though I believe you are wrong on things like supporting Rick Warren, and perhaps a large number of other areas, I have to say that you did a good job, sir.

    God Bless.

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Richard Abanes

    Peter,

    Greetings. BTW, this is a whole new community for me and I am eager to get to know all of you.

    I agree with you. It was a can of worms, to be sure. But I felt like it was a can of worms that needed to be opened because it has grown and infected the whole Body of Christ.

    Apologetics and discernment is about testing for truth (1 Thess. 5:19-22), defending the true faith delivered unto us (2 Corinthians 11:4; Jude 3), being patient and careful when making accusations (2 Timothy 4:2), showing love/respect/gentleness when making corrections (1 Cor. 13; 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:24-26).

    Such concepts have been wildly perverted by the so-called Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs). And I think that because the ministry area of apologetics and discernment is so near to my heart, it is grievous to see how these individuals have tarnished the whole concept of apologetics, and in so doing, have:

    1) caused division in the church; and

    2) misled others into thinking that what they are doing is actually the ministry of discernment/apologetics—when in reality, what they are doing is nothing more than witch hunting.

    My work over the last several months has included a personal effort to help others see and understand what is really going on with these so-called “watchmen on the wall” as they like to be called. And I think that they are showing their true colors more and more as the days go by. This Ken Silva controversy has shown plenty, IMHO.

    R. Abanes

  • Posted by Richard Abanes

    CS,

    THANK YOU!!!!

    You said: “I took your challenge of finding anything resembling an argument of your doctrinal and theological positions in that article, and could not find anything substantive.”

    That’s all I wanted. I want truth to be told. I want us ALL to be committed to standing for truth, the gospel, defending the faith, honesty, integrity, sound reasoning, biblical discernment.

    You can even disagree with me on all kinds of Rick Warren things. KEWL!!! Guess what, I don’t even agree with everything Rick Warren says or does. And if I were a pastor, I’m sure lots of people would disagree with me, too. Fine!!!

    As Christians, our unity is wrapped around a shared love for Jesus Christ, God the Son, who came and died for our sins on the cross, so that by grace through faith him, which includes his work on our behalf, we could receive eternal life with our Creator as a free gift!

    “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity.”

    And for the record, brother, I am SURE that i am wrong on all kinds of things. ROFL. Ask my wife.

    Richard Abanes

    P.S. GINO = AWESOME

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Richard,

    Thanks for taking the time to fight this battle. I did try and engage with some of these folks online some while back and found it fruitless (shortly after Ingrid removed comments from her site as she is, as she indicated to me personally in an email, not really about creating dialogue, but more about reporting what she sees as the news affecting the church - along with commentary). Also, as a working pastor I cannot afford to take too much time on such endeavors, but I appreciate you taking the time. Hopefully we will all benefit.

    It seems to me that Ken (and others like him) enjoy reporting news in such a fashion as to make something appear true that isn’t. Case in point, on his brand new (today) site, at http://apprising.org/ he reports under this headline. “RICHARD ABANES TO SUE APPRISING MINISTRIES OVER DEFAMATION-LIBEL?” Adding the question mark is no doubt a device to take the “edge off” of this statement, as you have at this point threatened no legal action whatsoever, as far as I know (although he reports that you wrote “Before turning this situation over to my attorneys, I respectfully request that IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM remove this particular article from it’s servers, and notify Ken Silva to cease and desist the posting similar articles. I have no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in a legal suit, and hope to resolve this issue as quickly and easily as possible.” which certainly implies that you will consider such action).

    in any case, it seems like a bit of sensationalist headline-making that is more at home on the cover of the National Enquirer than on the home page of a Christian Discernment Ministry (whatever the heck that really is) web site.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Yeah, Richard, if CS had his own discernment site, it wouldn’t get much traffic. It would be relatively balanced, polite and boring because he doesn’t call names and even sees both sides of issues (shocking!).

    (that was a compliment, CS!)

  • Posted by

    Peter:

    “Yeah, Richard, if CS had his own discernment site, it wouldn’t get much traffic. It would be relatively balanced, polite and boring because he doesn’t call names and even sees both sides of issues (shocking!).

    (that was a compliment, CS!) “

    Say what?! 

    Maybe today is just a very weird day.  I’m supporting a PD supporter, Peter is complementing me, Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

    (Bonus points if you get the movie reference.)

    Seriously, I do have a couple of blogs where I post some of my own observations about modern-day Christianity, but keep everything strictly above-the-belt.

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Richard Abanes

    PETER: It seems to me that Ken (and others like him) enjoy reporting news in such a fashion as to make something appear true that isn’t.

    ABANES: Today, I will be putting up a brand new RUMORS REPORT page at my website that includes a listing of many of the false statements that have flooded the internet from these people, who are using it as a perfect opportunity to spread more lies. We’re really seeing what they are all about.

    My list won’t be in-depth, just a quick - that’s wrong, that’s untrue, here’s a lie, etc etc etc. It’ll be very easy to read. I’ll post a link when it is done. Again, what we are seeing again and again is a frighteningly DEFIANT stand these people are taking against: truth, accountability, responsibility, and biblical guidelines for...well...just about everything!

    My opinion is the church needs to wake up and expose these people for who and what they are—i.e., very troubled individuals (spiritually, morally, and psychologically) who are damaging the Body of Christ. I’ll name no names. I’ll let you fill in the blanks as you read what is being disseminated now throughout cyberspace in response to this incident.

    RAbanes

  • Posted by

    Richard,

    Please stop being disingenious. There was an implied threat in your letter to I-Power. Though the form letter that you say you used say that you have no wish to name I-Power in a lawsuit, the implication is clear.

    Now, Ken did make his own decision to bring down his site and now it appears to be operaing at a new website. I agree.

    But please stop playing innocent and say that you never threatened a lawsuit to I-Power.

    I have to laugh, however, as you are now the self-appointed watchdogs of the watchdogs. I feel safer already. Maybe you should have taken more time away from the internet.

    I have no wish to call you a deluded idiot, but I would request that you stop being disingenous and playing innocent in your role in this conflict. You have continued to stoke the fires along with Ken when the two of you should be seeking reconciliation. But instead you seem to scour the internet looking for wesbites that report on this matter and then post your “side”. CRN info is just as bad as Ken in this matter.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    “But please stop playing innocent and say that you never threatened a lawsuit to I-Power.” Even if you agree that he might have implied a lawsuit (I agree, he did imply such) to say he was threatening I-Power seems a stretch.

    From Ken’s new web site, quoting Richard (I can’t assume this is accurate, as much from Ken has been, in my experience, very INaccurate, but nevertheless) “I have no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in a legal suit, and hope to resolve this issue as quickly and easily as possible.”

    What a mess.

  • Posted by Richard Abanes

    SAM: Though the form letter that you say you used say that you have no wish to name I-Power in a lawsuit, the implication is clear. . . . But please stop playing innocent and say that you never threatened a lawsuit to I-Power.

    RA: I am not being disingenuous. What do the words say: “I - have - no - wish - to” ..... etc. etc. etc. And I didn’t.  It was not even directed at Ken Silva, btw. WAS IT? IT was sent to IPOWER!!! Did you miss that? It was addressed to IPOWER.

    Soooooo, if you want to say that I threatened IPOWER with a lawsuit, PUH-Leeeze tell me where 1 Corinthians 6 says we as Christians cannot sue heathen, godless, worldly institutions when a wrong has been committed. I eagerly await your exegesis.

    Moreover, just fyi, the email I sent to IPOWER was a basic template that covers ALL manner of complaints that can be sent to an ISP (e.g., illegal pornography, unlicensed photograph use, libel, anything that is covered in a TOS agreement). I am not going to go around re-writing templates when I can simply throw it up to use.

    The bottom line message to IPOWER was to kindly review a single article on Ken Silva’s website that I found to be not only objectionable, but also a violation of their TOS agreement—according to my understanding of it. Their response and their course of action was up to their guidelines for how to handle such a basic complaint.

    There is not a HINT of anything wrong having been done on my part against a “brother in Christ” by a simple notification an ISP. I think it’s really stretching things to say otherwise—almost to the point of bearing false witness (hmm, not very surprising there).

    What has happened as a result of that template lies at the feet of Ken Silva who has turned this into an evangelical/apologetic circus. The spin being put on this by Silva and the ODMs is INCREDIBLE!!! I have to give them credit for that.
    ______________
    SAM: I have no wish to call you a deluded idiot

    RA: Clever way of doing it without doing it. Kudos.
    ______________
    SAM: But instead you seem to scour the internet looking for wesbites that report on this matter and then post your “side”.

    RA: Ooooooh, I see. So you don’t want me to post my side of the story in opposition to what is being posted at literal HUNDREDS of websites??? Hmmm, talk about censorship. Your fair-mindedness and sense of balance is staggering, and I mean that. It really is staggering to me.

    “The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17).

    R. Abanes

    R. Abanes

  • Page 1 of 11 pages

     1 2 3 >  Last »
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: