Schmidt has not seen Pakistan for what it really is - a cesspool of corruption and poorly educated people.
Pakistan has two major problems. Primarily, education of the people ... what good is a democracy if people cannot understand the democratic system - nor see past the public visage and look deeply into what kind of person a political candidate is.
This poor education leads Zardari (a corrupt politician who has ties to the murder of Murtaza Bhutto) only coming to power due to a three way effect of a sympathy vote (assassination of Benazir Bhutto), bribery and threats to people who work on his land (he is one of the largest land owners in Sindh). Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation.
The secondary problem is ALL the corruption from the upper levels of politics, to the police itself. If you're caught speeding in Pakistan, simply apologise to the officer who has caught you and slip him a few hundred rupees.
Want to get out of the airport faster by not having your bags security checked? Slip 500 rupees to the security officer.
Are you the prime minister of the country being investigated for money laundering? Make the lives hell for judges and lawyers.
Fix the education problem and everything else will fall into place and this is something that I truly hope that PTI will do, should they on the unlikely chance get into power (I say unlikely as I envisage that the PPP will somehow manage to bullshit their way through another election).
"This poor education leads Zardari (a corrupt politician who has ties to the murder of Murtaza Bhutto) only coming to power due to a three way effect of a sympathy vote (assassination of Benazir Bhutto), bribery and threats to people who work on his land (he is one of the largest land owners in Sindh). Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation."
Corruption is everywhere. Pakistan is hardly different. Even in the UK you'll find corrupt politicians or entrepreneurs. Perhaps they are less so (or simply better at it?) but this simply won't stop any time soon.
Education is an issue but only in the long term. Assuming Pakistan managed to overcome several of its other problems, uneducated would become Pakistan's most important resource. Uneducated people are what make industrialisation possible. They make low wages possible and so the country becomes interesting as a manufacturing base (as Thailand has become for example).
With more economic activity will come education and then the country will have to find an alternative economic source.
More education will also affect corruption as educated people tend to be less willing to put up with it.
This is of course overly simple but for a big picture, it does hold some truth.
I believe that focusing prematurely on education, is actually counter-productive as the tissue of companies in need of educated workers simply is not there and makes low wages more difficult.
The West is also a good example of other issues with educated people. Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms.
For what it's worth, in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad, the answer simply isn't black or white. I do know though that 90 Euros is not sustainable for many a family in France while a 250 Bath (in Thailand) is fairly cheap for car-owners.
Interesting. A lot of what you said rings true for my country too (South Africa). Thing is, you're both right! These countries are truly multi-faceted. There are rich, educated people with high technology and those without.
Anyway, I'll be interested to see if technology and communications are the panacea to education problems that Schmidt says they are. If so that's good for South Africa, the Internet is growing tremendously here.
Reading Schmidt I got the same feeling I get when reading Bill Gates talk about the teacher's unions: there's a lot of diplomatic-talk going on.
I think Schimdt is smart enough to see the truth. He's just playing the role of "diplomatic reporter" for the crowd. His calculus is probably that it's better to be very shy about exposing the truth and hope for change in the long run. It does not make sense to antagonize the people you will have to be working with in the future. Better to praise them slightly, acknowledge a few flaws that are non-controversial in nature, and express some sort of vague hope for the future.
Eric Shmidt's opinion on this topic has no value. People like him are treated way better than ordinary people in Muslim countries. People like me can be arrested/executed for the silliest of reasons [1][2][3]
I wouldn't ever go to a Muslim country because some rich dude said it's quite alright. What works for them needn't work for me.
> I wouldn't ever go to a Muslim country because some rich dude said it's quite alright.
Wow, I'm amazed that this comment can take top spot on HN. How does this even happen? There are plenty of 'muslim countries' that are perfectly fine. Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Dubai and Oman strike me as immediately safe 'muslim' places to go to. Millions of tourists go to these places every year and are fine.
The problems in Pakistan are not about whether or not it's a "muslim country" as you put it. The problems are based on what is societally and culturally acceptable which is a progression of traditions and norms, not Islam itself.
Let me put it this way, try swapping Muslim out for Jewish and re-read that statement, or Muslim for Christian. How do you think a muslim Pakistani would feel dressed normally for Pakistan in the bible belt of the US? Does that mean that they shouldn't go to Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
I'd hoped to see more discussion on the specifics in HN rather than sweeping statements with an undercurrent of racism.
Last time I wen't to Pakistan I was pretty happy with it and I'm not even a rich dude. Carefully check how the Muslim world works because it's quite similar to how the Western works: it's a bunch of different countries that share common interests and disagree on a lot of other things.
Trying to make a story with three links pointing at different countries.. Try the same with Hungary, Spain and the USA. You will hardly say anything interesting.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, make sure that you don't consider the Tribal Areas the same way you would consider the country itself. They are independent in many regards.
Knowing is understanding. I suggest you say no to your condition and discover other cultures and people. You will certainly become a much more interesting person in the process.
What actually amaze me most of the time that people consider Pakistan similar to Afghanistan and they believe that Pakistan == FATA region. The reality is that Fata is not even 5% of Pakistan and the region is disturbed because of invasion in Afghanistan and closed cultural ties between FATA and Afghans.
Totally agree about Mobile penetration in Pakistan. It is something similar to Africa. The difference that in Pakistan there is no wider acceptance of mobile usage other than sending useless SMS and Spams. There are only 2 companies offer mobile payments and that are also not TRUE mobile payments.
The technology is quite enjoyed by Pakistanis both in rural and urban areas. The biggest obstacle is corruption and politicians itself who don't let people to get educated.
I live in Lahore which is one of the three major cities in Pakistan. Trust me, what he says about electricity is absolutely true.
Right now I am sitting which out any electricity. My internet modem is on UPS so that I can have uninterrupted internet. As far as computer is concerned, I have to religiously charge my laptop whenever there is electricity so that I can use the laptop during the load shedding times.. Since its so hot( I am sweating right now no fan, and the temperature is 50 C), my laptop heats up which usually causes my graphics card to burn out. Just bought my third laptop in last 12 months. Desktop computers are out of question.
I spent a few days in Pakistan last week, specifically in Karachi. I found the people to be very polite, the city vibrant and modern (much more so than I expected), and in spite of their enormous challenges, there are pockets of growth and development (telecom, islamic banking). Like much of South Asia, these developments are in spite of the government.
There also seemed to be an air of optimism about the prospects of Imran Khan becoming the next Prime Minister. I asked my taxi driver what might cause Imran Khan to lose and he mentioned if America does not want him, he wont become PM.
great read - but in the process of painting a peachy picture for the future, he glosses over a huge core problem that pakistan has. The fact that a significant part of its identity is based on being the anti-india.
You know, I am reading a lot of comments like this lately on HN. It is always about the same group of countries too. Whether it is the "I hate to be a hater.." comment I read last week in the article about some random Arab nation introducing better schools, or this article about Pakistan. You will notice it also in articles about Israel or other "politically charged" areas too. In short, glossing over the entire article, and then dropping in some negative meme about the area in question. Please stop it.
Anti-Other-ism is not a Pakistani-only phenomena, as anyone here can attest to. An example I had was a physics professor in CEGEP who was horrified that I didn't drink. He proceeded to tell me that he "knew all about that Pakistan-India" business - through his Hindu Indian wife. Truth mixed with bigotry was the kindest way to put his newfound opinions. (Even then, it would not be fair to say that /her/ identity was based on being Anti-Pakistan or even a bigot)
Really, the concept of reducing a nation's entire identity to a strong negative emotion is ridiculous. It would be about as fair as saying that the American identity is about being "Anti-Brown" or the Japanese identity is about being "alien from the rest of the world". Nonsense, except for the smallest fraction of crazies that you could find in any sufficiently large population.
I'll take the critical-but-fair opinion of a third party such as Eric Schmidt over a compromised local like MJ Akbar any day.
"The fact that a significant part of its identity is based on being the anti-india"
Isn't that a relatively common situation for countries - especially those with a historical connection to a much larger neighbour?
For example in the UK there is the well known "Anyone but the English" thing where people in Wales/Scotland/Ireland support teams in major sporting events based on this selection criteria. And the "unofficial" Scottish national anthem is about a war 700 years ago against the English.
That's true for the military complex he mentions and the government. The middle class is less about 'anti-India' and more about keeping up with the Joneses. There is often a feeling of "we could be where India are right now" if we simply weren't embroiled in internal corruption scandals and government overthrows.
Of course, when it comes to a cricket match between the two, you're spot on.
> The press are generally hyper-critical of the United States policies in the region and take the view that the India-US relationship is driving much of our countries behavior.
It's put in diplomatic terms, but anyone from a western country will recognise it as saying that the public discourse about India (and the US) is far from rational. Your other comments are a lot more precise, so thanks.
The emergent middle class of Pakistan won’t settle for a corrupt system with constant terrorism and will push for reforms in a burgeoning democracy. Here’s to the new civil society of Pakistan, who will use connectivity, information and the Internet, to drive a peaceful revolution that brings Pakistan up to its true potential.
Gosh, I sure hope so. Maybe Eric should talk to some of the Green Revolution folks.
I don't mean to be cynical, but the desires of the emerging middle class are going to have to compete -- perhaps with great violence -- with the desires of the established interests. That's what happens when political systems aren't able to auto-correct and run for many decades.
The question I would have like Schmidt to answer is this: is Pakistan a country? That is, does it control its borders, is the government the sole user of force against the population, is there a place where international partners can go and ask for and receive redress when wronged by citizens of Pakistan?
I don't think it is. Or if it is, it's a close call.
Having said all of that negative stuff, I wish the people living in Pakistan the best. An emerging middle class, along with a decent education and unfettered internet access, is their best shot at a happier tomorrow.
I think you raise valid points. One difficult problem is (and I have faced this myself for the longest time and it is evident the Eric Schmidt is suffering from it as well) is that one tends to appraise a country along a line that mirrors one's own priors of what a country typically is. Such priors usually mirrors ones own country.
Pakistan's position is really very unique and it takes time to understand it. The usual labels take very different meanings. For instance what the western world calls "middle class" almost doesn't exist in the form that they expect it to. Even if it did, it has nowhere the clout or the purchase. The country is deeply, and I do mean deeply, feudal. "Middle class" either means of a feudal family decent or of military lineage. Feudal land holdings and military are the two, and pretty much the only two centers that drives the economy and are locked in their desire to keep their privileges intact. If you are interested in this topic, do take time to find out what percentage these two forces account for.
And then you have the significantly large radicalized population. And even here it is very different. You would think radical groups are fringe groups, but not quite so in Pakistan and this has been cultivated by deliberate intent over several decades. The identity of a victimized population that the world has been unfair to because of their religion gets ingrained very early in the education system. Such a belief of persecution is rampant even in the mainstream, sometimes given a modicum of a veneer. Its difficult to catch these undertones unless one is familiar with the language and reads the same newspapers that the Pakistanis read, or watch the same TV shows that Pakistanis watch. Find out about Zaid Hamid and then consider the fact that there he is as main stream as vanila ice-cream.
Next word: army. It is very different from an army one would expect to see. It is a cross between a rich political party that has an unprecedentedly militarized cadre and a mafia house doling out favors (in the form of jobs and other privileges) to keep the population in control. On one hand it controls what you would call the civic life and on the other it also controls albeit at a very decentralized way the different Jihadi outfits which are again smaller mafia houses as entrenched in an economic endeavor as much as a religious one. Its common to dismiss these radical outfits as religious whackos, but you would get a better understanding if you also follow the money and see how the business side of it works.
Entwined with the feudal system is a deep ethnic undercurrent and you would often find the different parties locked in a perverse game theoretic equilibrium trying to gain control. All this goes unreported in the western media, or well in their own country as well. To see what I am talking about, dig up statistics of violence related civilian (police personnel included) deaths in Karachi in the past year, and Karachi is the most liberal city there.
The funniest comment by Eric Schmidt was about freedom of the press. That does not exist. Unless you have some seat of power guarding your life you cant say what you want to say at least not while residing in Pakistan.
> The question I would have like Schmidt to answer is this: is Pakistan a country?
Given that there is no real agreed definition as to what exactly a country is, it's unlikely that Schmidt could answer that. Also your definitions about what a country is are strangely arbitrary and seem to have little to do with whether a country is a country or not.
But, but almost any definition of country, Pakistan is a country. It may have many problems, but it's absurd to suggest that it might not be.
In terms of startups, Pakistan is being let down by the banking bureaucracy. Paypal doesn't work in Pakistan, and there is no official explanation of why it is so. Lacking a mode of easy/ secure online payments, startups are kind of dead in Pakistan at this time.
If you have a risky or nonexistent payment infrastructure, poor ability to enforce contracts, high inflation, high interest rates, and high risk due to corruption then it is going to be tough. Unfortunately these kinds of conditions cover most of the populated world.
[+] [-] omarqureshi|13 years ago|reply
Schmidt has not seen Pakistan for what it really is - a cesspool of corruption and poorly educated people.
Pakistan has two major problems. Primarily, education of the people ... what good is a democracy if people cannot understand the democratic system - nor see past the public visage and look deeply into what kind of person a political candidate is.
This poor education leads Zardari (a corrupt politician who has ties to the murder of Murtaza Bhutto) only coming to power due to a three way effect of a sympathy vote (assassination of Benazir Bhutto), bribery and threats to people who work on his land (he is one of the largest land owners in Sindh). Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation.
The secondary problem is ALL the corruption from the upper levels of politics, to the police itself. If you're caught speeding in Pakistan, simply apologise to the officer who has caught you and slip him a few hundred rupees.
Want to get out of the airport faster by not having your bags security checked? Slip 500 rupees to the security officer.
Are you the prime minister of the country being investigated for money laundering? Make the lives hell for judges and lawyers.
Fix the education problem and everything else will fall into place and this is something that I truly hope that PTI will do, should they on the unlikely chance get into power (I say unlikely as I envisage that the PPP will somehow manage to bullshit their way through another election).
[+] [-] lollancf37|13 years ago|reply
No it's not. I won't go further.
[+] [-] nakkiel|13 years ago|reply
Education is an issue but only in the long term. Assuming Pakistan managed to overcome several of its other problems, uneducated would become Pakistan's most important resource. Uneducated people are what make industrialisation possible. They make low wages possible and so the country becomes interesting as a manufacturing base (as Thailand has become for example).
With more economic activity will come education and then the country will have to find an alternative economic source.
More education will also affect corruption as educated people tend to be less willing to put up with it.
This is of course overly simple but for a big picture, it does hold some truth.
I believe that focusing prematurely on education, is actually counter-productive as the tissue of companies in need of educated workers simply is not there and makes low wages more difficult.
The West is also a good example of other issues with educated people. Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms.
For what it's worth, in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad, the answer simply isn't black or white. I do know though that 90 Euros is not sustainable for many a family in France while a 250 Bath (in Thailand) is fairly cheap for car-owners.
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|13 years ago|reply
Anyway, I'll be interested to see if technology and communications are the panacea to education problems that Schmidt says they are. If so that's good for South Africa, the Internet is growing tremendously here.
[+] [-] obtu|13 years ago|reply
You're overstating it; Berlusconi is a counterexample.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|13 years ago|reply
I think Schimdt is smart enough to see the truth. He's just playing the role of "diplomatic reporter" for the crowd. His calculus is probably that it's better to be very shy about exposing the truth and hope for change in the long run. It does not make sense to antagonize the people you will have to be working with in the future. Better to praise them slightly, acknowledge a few flaws that are non-controversial in nature, and express some sort of vague hope for the future.
Might work. Might not.
[+] [-] asto|13 years ago|reply
I wouldn't ever go to a Muslim country because some rich dude said it's quite alright. What works for them needn't work for me.
[1]http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-13/asia/world_asia_pakistan-... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_Kashgari [3]http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/iran-must-halt-execution-web-...
[+] [-] _b8r0|13 years ago|reply
Wow, I'm amazed that this comment can take top spot on HN. How does this even happen? There are plenty of 'muslim countries' that are perfectly fine. Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Dubai and Oman strike me as immediately safe 'muslim' places to go to. Millions of tourists go to these places every year and are fine.
The problems in Pakistan are not about whether or not it's a "muslim country" as you put it. The problems are based on what is societally and culturally acceptable which is a progression of traditions and norms, not Islam itself.
Let me put it this way, try swapping Muslim out for Jewish and re-read that statement, or Muslim for Christian. How do you think a muslim Pakistani would feel dressed normally for Pakistan in the bible belt of the US? Does that mean that they shouldn't go to Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
I'd hoped to see more discussion on the specifics in HN rather than sweeping statements with an undercurrent of racism.
[+] [-] nakkiel|13 years ago|reply
Trying to make a story with three links pointing at different countries.. Try the same with Hungary, Spain and the USA. You will hardly say anything interesting.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, make sure that you don't consider the Tribal Areas the same way you would consider the country itself. They are independent in many regards.
Knowing is understanding. I suggest you say no to your condition and discover other cultures and people. You will certainly become a much more interesting person in the process.
[+] [-] irfan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pknerd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pknerd|13 years ago|reply
What actually amaze me most of the time that people consider Pakistan similar to Afghanistan and they believe that Pakistan == FATA region. The reality is that Fata is not even 5% of Pakistan and the region is disturbed because of invasion in Afghanistan and closed cultural ties between FATA and Afghans.
Totally agree about Mobile penetration in Pakistan. It is something similar to Africa. The difference that in Pakistan there is no wider acceptance of mobile usage other than sending useless SMS and Spams. There are only 2 companies offer mobile payments and that are also not TRUE mobile payments.
The technology is quite enjoyed by Pakistanis both in rural and urban areas. The biggest obstacle is corruption and politicians itself who don't let people to get educated.
[+] [-] planetguy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zack12|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollerith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raheemm|13 years ago|reply
There also seemed to be an air of optimism about the prospects of Imran Khan becoming the next Prime Minister. I asked my taxi driver what might cause Imran Khan to lose and he mentioned if America does not want him, he wont become PM.
Here is an interview of Imran Khan with Julian Assange - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WacS98ATtIM
[+] [-] jorahmormont|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draggnar|13 years ago|reply
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...
[+] [-] kamakazizuru|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbm|13 years ago|reply
Anti-Other-ism is not a Pakistani-only phenomena, as anyone here can attest to. An example I had was a physics professor in CEGEP who was horrified that I didn't drink. He proceeded to tell me that he "knew all about that Pakistan-India" business - through his Hindu Indian wife. Truth mixed with bigotry was the kindest way to put his newfound opinions. (Even then, it would not be fair to say that /her/ identity was based on being Anti-Pakistan or even a bigot)
Really, the concept of reducing a nation's entire identity to a strong negative emotion is ridiculous. It would be about as fair as saying that the American identity is about being "Anti-Brown" or the Japanese identity is about being "alien from the rest of the world". Nonsense, except for the smallest fraction of crazies that you could find in any sufficiently large population.
I'll take the critical-but-fair opinion of a third party such as Eric Schmidt over a compromised local like MJ Akbar any day.
[+] [-] arethuza|13 years ago|reply
Isn't that a relatively common situation for countries - especially those with a historical connection to a much larger neighbour?
For example in the UK there is the well known "Anyone but the English" thing where people in Wales/Scotland/Ireland support teams in major sporting events based on this selection criteria. And the "unofficial" Scottish national anthem is about a war 700 years ago against the English.
[+] [-] thinker|13 years ago|reply
Of course, when it comes to a cricket match between the two, you're spot on.
[+] [-] redwood|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obtu|13 years ago|reply
> The press are generally hyper-critical of the United States policies in the region and take the view that the India-US relationship is driving much of our countries behavior.
It's put in diplomatic terms, but anyone from a western country will recognise it as saying that the public discourse about India (and the US) is far from rational. Your other comments are a lot more precise, so thanks.
[+] [-] alan_cx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ern|13 years ago|reply
I'm not an expert on the topic, but if Karachi[1] can be regarded as "relatively safe", the Pakistan has bigger problems that I imagined.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/30/karachi-ethnic-f...
[+] [-] pknerd|13 years ago|reply
Julian Assange interviews Imran Assange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an-AJIqN_r4
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|13 years ago|reply
Gosh, I sure hope so. Maybe Eric should talk to some of the Green Revolution folks.
I don't mean to be cynical, but the desires of the emerging middle class are going to have to compete -- perhaps with great violence -- with the desires of the established interests. That's what happens when political systems aren't able to auto-correct and run for many decades.
The question I would have like Schmidt to answer is this: is Pakistan a country? That is, does it control its borders, is the government the sole user of force against the population, is there a place where international partners can go and ask for and receive redress when wronged by citizens of Pakistan?
I don't think it is. Or if it is, it's a close call.
Having said all of that negative stuff, I wish the people living in Pakistan the best. An emerging middle class, along with a decent education and unfettered internet access, is their best shot at a happier tomorrow.
[+] [-] srean|13 years ago|reply
Pakistan's position is really very unique and it takes time to understand it. The usual labels take very different meanings. For instance what the western world calls "middle class" almost doesn't exist in the form that they expect it to. Even if it did, it has nowhere the clout or the purchase. The country is deeply, and I do mean deeply, feudal. "Middle class" either means of a feudal family decent or of military lineage. Feudal land holdings and military are the two, and pretty much the only two centers that drives the economy and are locked in their desire to keep their privileges intact. If you are interested in this topic, do take time to find out what percentage these two forces account for.
And then you have the significantly large radicalized population. And even here it is very different. You would think radical groups are fringe groups, but not quite so in Pakistan and this has been cultivated by deliberate intent over several decades. The identity of a victimized population that the world has been unfair to because of their religion gets ingrained very early in the education system. Such a belief of persecution is rampant even in the mainstream, sometimes given a modicum of a veneer. Its difficult to catch these undertones unless one is familiar with the language and reads the same newspapers that the Pakistanis read, or watch the same TV shows that Pakistanis watch. Find out about Zaid Hamid and then consider the fact that there he is as main stream as vanila ice-cream.
Next word: army. It is very different from an army one would expect to see. It is a cross between a rich political party that has an unprecedentedly militarized cadre and a mafia house doling out favors (in the form of jobs and other privileges) to keep the population in control. On one hand it controls what you would call the civic life and on the other it also controls albeit at a very decentralized way the different Jihadi outfits which are again smaller mafia houses as entrenched in an economic endeavor as much as a religious one. Its common to dismiss these radical outfits as religious whackos, but you would get a better understanding if you also follow the money and see how the business side of it works.
Entwined with the feudal system is a deep ethnic undercurrent and you would often find the different parties locked in a perverse game theoretic equilibrium trying to gain control. All this goes unreported in the western media, or well in their own country as well. To see what I am talking about, dig up statistics of violence related civilian (police personnel included) deaths in Karachi in the past year, and Karachi is the most liberal city there.
The funniest comment by Eric Schmidt was about freedom of the press. That does not exist. Unless you have some seat of power guarding your life you cant say what you want to say at least not while residing in Pakistan.
If you have interest you can follow this sarcastic blog of a faux major http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/prospects-fo... but you have to read between the lines because beneath the sarcasm there lies a lot of deliberate thought.
[+] [-] urbanjunkie|13 years ago|reply
Given that there is no real agreed definition as to what exactly a country is, it's unlikely that Schmidt could answer that. Also your definitions about what a country is are strangely arbitrary and seem to have little to do with whether a country is a country or not.
But, but almost any definition of country, Pakistan is a country. It may have many problems, but it's absurd to suggest that it might not be.
[+] [-] capex|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slurgfest|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siculars|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodata|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carbon8|13 years ago|reply