Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is OWS a cult?

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 18, 2012, 4:36 a.m. EST by MatthewRKains (57)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A friend told me about OWS and I watched some videos on youtube.com to learn more. I was surprised that everything said by the speaker was repeated by the crowd. It reminded me of what we used to do at a Christian camp I attended as a child. The hand shaking is also religious like. It scares me. I want to join OWS, but I don't want to join a cult. I just want corruption out of Wall Street.

Here's an example of cult-like behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI&feature=player_embedded#!

What is your experience with OWS events and activities? Do you consider OWS a cult?

124 Comments

124 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Reactionary, counter-revolutionary, negativism and dissent fostering navel gazing. I wonder where all the "bridge to the ground' was yesterday. This BS post is NOT 'bona fide' and I question the real motives as much as I question the 'allegedly new' poster.

On this matter of 'cults', consider : Judaism is a cult with many sects ; Christianity is a cult with many sects ; Islam is a cult with many sects !!! Is anyone else also tired of all this Paternalistic, Monotheistic, Abrahamic Mumbo-Jumbo ?!! 'Organised Religion' does NOT have any Monopoly on matters 'Spiritual' !!

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 0 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Did you watch the video I linked? I don't think it's BS to question whether the repeated sentences and hand waving gestures are cult-like in appearance. I believe it's a very valid question. And, yes, Christianity is a cult like other religions, I implied this in my original posting. Christian camp was horrible, I do not wish it upon anyone.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

'OWS' is NOT a cult - it is a very broad 'church' (pun intended). You're a whispering 'dissension-monkey'. So, re. 'OWS #S17' - It has been a year - "But We Are still Here' - cue a 'rave-in-a-cave Matrix stylee' :-)

cave - anguis in herba ...

[-] -1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

It's funny you think this is dissent, it was a question. It's also funny you talk of dissent because I was just reading the Statement Of Autonomy from the NYCGA http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/statement-of-autonomy/, and one of the first lines in the document is - "We welcome dissent".

Do you think the Statement of Autonomy should be changed to "We do not welcome dissent". If so, wouldn't that make OWS more cult-like?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Specious Twaddle - 'Trashy' and you are revealed by your querulous forked-tongue. 'Dissent' is fine as it can be fairly addressed ; YOU however, need no such latitude or further protracted engagement. 'Wedge Issues' are your ploy & we'll now see just how many of the co-opted 'TrashyTrollTeam", actually come to your defence here.

temet nosce ...

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

I think you replied to the wrong comment by mistake.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Nope - 'TrashyWormTongue', you're wrong & read our 'to and fro' or this whole BS thread or remember our previous history, for extra context. Hey look - your BS post made over 100 comments already, lol.

ad iudicium et mea culpa ...

[-] -1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Do you mean thrasyharry? I saw that name a few hours back. Perhaps you were exchanging with him and got confused with our exchange. If not, I have no idea what you are referring to.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Seems to me OWS is the opposite of a cult. The co-opters are the cultists.

[-] -1 points by SirJohnKnowsALot (-5) 1 year ago

Really? But OWS refuses all criticism or dissent, like a good cult does. It also promotes repetition and hand gestures like any good televangelist would.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by SirJohnKnowsALot (-5) 1 year ago

You are making an appeal to motive logical fallacy.

In this case, the motive is not important. The video shows an Occupy general assembly. There is no editing. It is as it is. The people filming did not make this up.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It originally started as a human microphone for crowds to get out a message for everyone to hear when they didn't have an audio system setup.

Then it kind of just continued from there.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

The original function makes sense, but in the video I linked the main speaker has a microphone and is heard quite easily without repetitions.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I don't get why they still do it when they have a mic setup. Unless it's in a protest.

For example here in my city the Occupy group used it like this

It's a lot harder to silence a whole group during a protest like this. Also the wording was decided on by the entire group in a GA.

After a swear in ceremony for a new police commissioner occupy stood up and used the human mic to get out request for a police auditor and someone to hold the police accountable for police brutality. This was after video evidence of a man who was beat by a bunch of officers was released in the man's defense.

Human mic starts at 2:20 - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4468537432929

Occupy is not a cult. Having a chant doesn't mean it's a cult.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Thanks for your reply and opinion.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You're welcome. Have a good day.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Interesting reply, and thanks for the mention of this sociological study which I will make sure to read.

Did you watch the video I linked? If so, I would like to ask a question regarding the outcome of their decision to dismiss the talk from John Lewis. A question about OWS direct democracy.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Wow! Thanks for the detailed answer. Yes, the source of the video seems to be conserARTive.com, but it doesn't seem they have edited it or overdubbed it. I think what we see in the video is an Occupy general assembly like it happened.

If I may, I'd like to ask you a question about the end of the video I linked. As you can see, the occupiers blocked and the invited speaker did not speak. After this, a man screams - "This is democracy!". What I find strange is that the guest was invited and that there was not a consensus for him not to speak. In fact, there was no consensus at all. Some people wanted him to speak, some others did not. It seems to me the one leading the general assembly favored him not speaking over him speaking. He didn't want him to speak because everyone did not agree to him speaking, but he could as well have decided that he did want him to speak because not everyone agreed that he shouldn't speak. It doesn't seem democratic at all. To me, it seems that democracy would have been better served if a coin would have been tossed since no consensus could be reached. And really, it took 10 minutes for them to decide not to hear this congressman, 10 minutes! I would have rather heard the congressman speak for those 10 minutes.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

But, do you understand my point? This does not seem like democracy to me because the starting point was not a neutral one. The starting point was - "he will not talk unless we reach a consensus that he should talk.". It was not - "Let's see if we can reach a consensus on whether he should talk or not.". There was no consensus reached either way. Some wanted him to talk and some did not. True democracy would have had someone throw a coin in the air. And, it seems to me he was invited to speak at the GA. I don't think he showed up unannounced and asked them if could speak.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

My point was that the starting position influences the outcome quite a bit. If the initial acceptance would have been that he should not speak, then one block would have made it that he should speak. It's interesting how democracy often starts off with pre-established positions.

So, you believe Occupy missed it's chance and that it's basically dead? You're the second one who tells me this today. It's kind of depressing since this is the anniversary week.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

I see. So what do you think the future holds for OWS? What should we do now?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

'Tr@shbucket' - Is this your latest 'wedge issue' angle ? It is BS !

temet nosce ..

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

What does the death of a film's author have to do with watching a film or not? I watch Hitchcock and Fellini movies quite frequently. I even saw Metropolis from Fritz Lang a few weekends ago.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Breitbart is no Lang or Hitchcock!

He is a right wing operative pushing propaganda. No one should give their money to him or his org. (he is dead, I think instant Karma got 'em)

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Hemlock? Is that what got the dogs? Maybe you should be more careful with it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Thank you for contributing to my posting, but I would like to kindly ask you to please refrain from using vulgar language on this page as I would like to use it to teach my son about Internet discussions, politics, and OWS in general. He is only 9. Would it be possible for you to edit your comments here? Thank you.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

And the little troll who can't take criticism comes out. Why so hostile with anyone you disagree with? Why would anyone want to follow that example?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I'm a big boy I can take it, liberal douchebag. That is if you have to stop campaigning for Obama!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

It's your bullshit that stinks you shoukd be used to the smell by now

[-] -1 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

Yes it was criticism. This forum is for ows only and maybe you should find another site to post your trash

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Why dont you drop the creepy scary crazy old man bit? It dosn't work over the Internet. I just use Scott Muni's voice when i read your stuff and laugh, laugh, laugh.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

I'm thinking William Gaines.

[-] -1 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

We have seen you and thanks for not posting your pic anymore

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27660) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Stop spamming BS.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Just because you don't like doesn't make it BS

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

When has FLAKESnews/brietbart/beck, etc. created something besides BS?

It would appear that you really,really, like BS.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

they mentioned the anti-war movement in the trailer

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Well, I guess that's a start..................:)

I hope it was an honorable mention.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

It was simply a response to the left side of media it didn't a genius to see it comeing

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Where is this fabled "left side" of the media?

Why would reporting nothing but BS counter it?

Why did it take the repeal of the fairness doctrine to allow such BS to begin?

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Where is the left side ?? Wow really shooz I know you are not that naive, I know fox is right leaning and if don't want to be intellectually honest fine. The fairness doc. Was a joke to begin with

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You didn't answer a single one of the three questions I asked of you.

That is intellectually dishonest, like FLAKESnews.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Im shocked you won't admit the simple truth fox is right winged but there's no lib leaning media I didn't think you were that much of a simpleton

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're still not answering.

That's extremely simple of you.

FLAKESnews is not correct.

Please prove your point.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

All you do is say fox is right wing and provide nothing more so why should you get anything more in return? Hold yourself to the same standards. If you don't want a simple conversation add something to it not just demand from it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I didn't say that, you did.

Now will you answer the questions asked?

Or are you deflecting until the thread ends?

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I'm doing exactly what you are doing nothing more.. Practice what you preach

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

FLAKESnews links?????

I didn't do that, you did.

Now will you answer the questions?

[-] -1 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/emails-show-justice-working-with-media-matters-to-target-critics/#ixzz26q8iq8oc

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"The Myth of the Liberal Media : The Propaganda Model of News" :

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky demolish one of the central tenets of our political culture, the idea of the "liberal media." Instead, utilizing a systematic model based on massive empirical research, they reveal the manner in which the news media are so subordinated to corporate and conservative interests that their function can only be described as that of "Elite Propaganda".

"If you want to understand the way a system works, you look at its institutional structure. How it is organized, how it is controlled, how it is funded." (Noam Chomsky).

"The Mainstream media really represent elite interests, and what the propaganda model tries to do is stipulate a set of institutional variables, reflecting this elite power, that very powerfully influence the media." (Edward Herman).

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I get it pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

You don't get 'SH!T' and you're talking outta your (x) !!! IF you had had the wit to open the link, watch, absorb, digest and reflect - then you would have learnt something from "behind the curtain" !! As it is, you'd sooner just 'react' and reply with a 'brain fart' trying to be a considered response !

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I don't belive everything I'm told, you do so don't cry to me I don't take anything at face value. Everyone has there own agenda and a brain fart is all the comment deserved.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"I don't belive everything I'm told" - maybe so - but I think that you'll believe The Right-Wing US MSM (ABCNNBCBS-FUX SNEWzzz et al) in a heartbeat !!! Get this - It Is All Variations On The Theme of 'Right-Wing' !! Now, watch the documentary or have another 'brainfart' - but "don't cry to me" - again !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

fairness doctrine?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Put in place by FDR. Repealed by Reagan.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

FDR was dead in 1949

sounds like a censorship law

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

copy and past or summarize

that's way too many links for me to look through

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Here's the essence.

"The act is rooted in the media world of 1949, when lawmakers became concerned that by virtue of their near-stranglehold on nationwide TV broadcasting, the three main television networks — NBC, ABC and CBS — could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda. The Fairness Doctrine, which mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance, was meant to level the playing field. Congress backed the policy in 1954, and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the "single most important requirement of operation in the public interest — the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license." (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)"

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

thanks

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27660) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is a BS OP piece from an attacker of OWS/Occupy.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

It's to be excepted, doesn't mean you have to revert to a child to respond to it

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I've been running NO WAR in my signature since 2005

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

a following or a belief is a cult. Christianity for example is a cult.

[-] 0 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Christianity certainly is a cult as I implied in my original posting.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

No, OWS is not a cult. A cult has a clearly-defined belief structure, whereas nobody in OWS agrees with anybody else in OWS.

[-] 2 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

If nobody agrees with anybody else in OWS, does that mean that there are no founding immutable principles upon which OWS rests? Do you mean that there is not even one belief that is shared amongst OWS supporters and activists? This seems rather odd.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

non-violence

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Name one?

[-] 2 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

From what I understand, OWS supporters and activists share the belief that there is corruption amongst the 1% and that we would all be better off if it is was stopped in some way. I would also say that they believe that democracy could be increased worldwide, or at least in America. It seems to me they believe that the government is disconnected from the people and that one of their goals is to create a system wherein the people have more say on how the country operates.

If you're right and there are no founding principles, than we can say OWS is about everything which would mean it's essentially about nothing at all. Again, this seems rather odd.

Why should I join OWS if it's about nothing in particular?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

A certain subset might believe that, but an even larger subset is actively campaigning for the Presidential re-election of one of those 1%ers.

You're assuming consensus where there is none. For some people it's about the 1% versus the 99%, for some people it's about labor unions versus corporations, for some people it's the political inside versus the outside, for some people it's the left versus the right, for some its about the people versus the estalishment (specifically law enforcement) and the balance is mostly made up of singularity futurists and conspiracy theorists.

[-] 2 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

So, OWS is about everything which means is about nothing at all?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yes, that's exactly correct.

And congratulations. You figured that out a lot more quickly than a lot of people who have been involved for a year.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

What's your involvement with OWS, if any at all?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I came here a year ago when all of this first started because I thought that OWS might become the kind of political movement that I could get behind. But what I found was utter chaos, and a total lack of will to become a political movement.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/

Then for a while I puzzled over enigmas like why does Occupy hate cops and I had fun for a while with the conspiracy theorists.

I ended up responding with a job offer whenever anybody complained about unemployment until I managed to hire somebody. (It took months before anybody even applied, and I hired the first guy who applied, who still works with me.)

Then I pretty much got bored with the futility of the whole thing, and now I only come back every once in a while to see if anything has changed. Nothing has.

This is the moment when I officially gave up on Occupy:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

When that became a hate-Republicans conversation, I knew that there was no hope.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what was the job offer ?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Software developer, entry level, with training. He did so well over the last year that this week he's starting school for his computer science degree. So I'm happy, I got something out of Occupy, and so did he.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Hey that's all some people have on here lol

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

You mean your involvement with OWS is limited to this sole forum?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

My assessment of Occupy based partly on this forum led me to decide against participating in my local occupation. And in retrospect, that appears to have been a wise decision:

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-03-22/news/occupy-miami-descends-into-drugs-and-chaos-in-an-overtown-apartment-building/

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Alright. Thank you for your insight. It is much appreciated.

[-] -1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

In general I disagree with conservatives and consider republicans to be the Neo- Fascist party of America, but I do my best to stay civil and avoid the authoritarian behavior that most occupiers engage in.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm not refuting you or arguing with you in any way, I'm just curious what you meant by "authoritarian"?

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

like the F-Scale variety.

[-] 0 points by SirJohnKnowsALot (-5) 1 year ago

Occupy is quite authoritarian in many ways. This is how anarchists and marxists naturally operate. There is nothing new or surprising here.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

Im surprised that so many anarchists and marxists were able to take control of everything and get rid of those individuals who had legitimate concerns.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

It seems strange to lump anarchists and marxists together. Statists and anti-statists.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I see money out of politics as 1 thing OWS agrees on.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Then why did this thread turn into an anti-Republican hate fest?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

This website doesn't reflect OWS as a whole. Or even the new york occupation.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

The New York occupation doesn't exist any more. So when you say that OWS agrees on getting the money out of politics, you're referring to whom? Not people online, and not people in Zuccotti Park. So who do you mean?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

You might like this interview of one of the founders of the 99% Movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6dDYVDdmg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I'm talking about your average person who identifies with OWS. Wether your talking about the protesters at the dnc and rnc or las vegas locals who started paying attention to the corruption to the system because OWS brought it to their attention.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

So the people on this site don't count? The average people on that page that I referenced who identify with OWS who couldn't agree to set aside their partisan squabbling to discuss getting the money out of politics don't count?

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

It's more that they are a vocal minority then they don't count. Most of the pro obama propeganda I've seen have been countered by other posters.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

There will be people from the two major parties who will attempt to co-opt any movement which has the potential to bring people together from across the political spectrum.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

That seems a reasonable answer.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The repeating has been used as "the peoples mike" because in Liberty park we were not allowed to use a microphone so in a crowd of 2000+ people there was no way to be heard all over so we invented it.


Is OWS a cult? W hat is your definition of a cult?
Mine is any organization that puts means ( books, bilbles, rules, processes )
ahead of actual goals


If you want to see OWS work see our site & come to our meeting
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

In the video I linked, the main speaker does use a microphone and is easily heard without the repetitions. Not only are the repetitions creepy, they slow down the process to a turtle's pace. Perhaps OWS is not a cult, but these strange repetition rituals and hand waving rituals are very cult-like.

If you decide to watch the video, I'd very much like to ask you a question about the ending which is about democracy, and not the cult-like aspects I remarked on.

[-] -2 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

If you want to find out what ows is really about then check this out http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/06/breitbart-film-seeks-to-bare-roots-of-occupy-movement/

[-] 3 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

Thanks for the link, but I don't consider Fox as a serious news source, much less Breitbart who is most certainly biased in this movie.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Please like any new org. Should be taken seriously!! They are either left or right no such thing as ind. reporting

[+] -4 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

Fox has to stand for something since it has been rated #1 for the past 15 years

[-] 2 points by MatthewRKains (57) 1 year ago

It's good for entertainment, not for acquiring serious information and news. Popularity does not equate or necessarily relate to quality.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

by who?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

cable count?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago