Sunday, I was happy to give a talk at the FSF , wearing the Tshirt I designed for them (photo). But later that day, Richard Stallman announced his return to the FSF's Board of Directors. In this situation, I'll no longer invest my energy for them... ๐Ÿ˜ฟ


Stallman poses a danger to the system not only because of his ideas about Free Software but because he kept alive the approach with which we have obtained all our rights: radicalism. The system try to discredit Stallman even with fake news and to incorporate only what suits its interests under the name of "Open Source" leaving out the rest of the rights-based political movement (Free Software).

I can't believe you fell for this fake news too ๐Ÿ˜•

@alexl Oh, stfu.

It's not fake news, you can easily read the documented decades of bad behaviour from RMS. We're not upset about his uncompromising attitude towards free software. We're talking about him being a constant sex pest and his decades of support for pedophilia.

@davidrevoy I'm sorry you've upset the RMS fan club.

I believe you made the right choice. I am also thinking of how to disassociate myself from the FSF.


I read Stallman's original words. If you are so sure of what you are saying, please report the offending texts here.

For some reason (๐Ÿ˜ ) those who attack Stallman never report his words and context. Those who defend it calmly report them: โ€‹

I call this defaming someone with fake news.

@alexl Nah, stfu, you already read them and you can't see how he's a sex pest or the time the rubbed his underwear on a woman's forehead without even asking her and you think that's fine, then I can't really help you.

@alexl @davidrevoy Two things can be true at the same time: 1. A person made an important contribution to philosophy and politics, sparking a new movement. 2. The same person is a pain to deal with even for their friends and allies and their continued presence is a distraction for that movement.

To me it's also a huge red flag when people operate by "I'm controlling this thing or I'm not participating at all": What GNU tool does he actively maintain (or even just contribute to in a meaningful way)?

But even if we look at his much-desired "President of FSF and GNU" role: what initiative did he get off the ground in the last, say, 20 years, that was more meaningful than a website demanding tons of things, waiting for somebody to do it, and then chastising them for not doing it The Right Way? (Through coreboot I've been on the receiving end of that, so yeah, I do hold a grudge)

@JordiGH @alexl What are you referring to?

@wire @alexl The underwear thing? It's a very old story, while dining in a restaurant, he rubbed his clean underwear on Mae Ling Mak's forehead because he thought it would be soft and she would like it. When she realised what he was doing, she asked him to stop, and he did.

There was the Emacs virgins joke thing, there was the time he tried to make women eat off his hand at a conference, there have been other times he's made unwanted advances, and there's the decades of pedophilia apologia.


Let's be honest, this is not the reason most people are unhappy with Stallman leading the FSF. They don't want him because of this fake news about... child abuse? I don't even know how to call it since Stallman just said the word "assault" was not appropriate for an episode we don't know nothing about and the professor involved is already dead and can't provide his version of facts.

@wire @alexl His basic argument in favour of pedophilia was, as long as young girls are consenting, it's okay. It's also his justification for zoophilia, and also the basic argument he presented in defense of Minsky, as if Minsky was sooooo incapable of knowing that having sex with young women pimped out to him by someone else was a bad thing to do.

@wire @alexl I think someone has finally (finally!) made him realise that young girls are harmed by sex even if they appear to consent. Not sure what his stance on zoophilia is right now. Maybe he still thinks animals can consent.

Anyway, with all this, this dude should not be in the leadership of the FSF.

@JordiGH @alexl
Re controversial views on sex, they are all linked from Sure they are controversial, but even where he is wrong, I don't see why he can't post such views on his blog as long as he does not advertise them when speaking on behalf of FSF.

So far the most convincing argument is some stories of his awkward behaviour in presence of women, but the only reference I found is

@wire @alexl Oh, you don't want to be convinced, never mind. I thought you had no idea.

More words, reasons and thoughts on this fresh blog-post:


> But nowadays, I deeply think he is a bad representative for the community.


birdsite, answer

@alexl @davidrevoy Perhaps this flow of tweets on Twitter will give you an inkling of why.

If that's not enough then just accept that folks are disappointed and move on with life while other folks move on.

@JordiGH @davidrevoy at this point I donโ€™t think that the FSF will be a long standing institution. These decisions demonstrate a greater interest in the personality cult of RMS than in actually fostering/mentoring new leadership talent to ensure the future of the foundation.

@alexl Only part of what he has been accused of was distorted. It took him years to get that there is no "but it's consensual" escape hatch to underage sex (as RMS himself writes in ).

It's part of his (apparent) approach to life of having strong opinions, strongly held: he sets up some theory, however flawed, and then it takes years for others to undo that position. RMS _always_ required a significant amount of cleaning up after him by those around him, pretty much wherever he went (and I don't mean that in a hygiene sense because I don't know about that). In this instance it simply was too much to clean up after, _even though_ some of the statements were trivial to rebuke.

Why was that? Because it was all too much in line with his public persona.

So, he was ousted for holding and expressing undesirable opinions, and some of them were distorted. The last part was unfair, I agree, but I also think that the rest was enough of a reason to get rid of him, not necessarily because of these particular opinions, but because his way of expressing and defending them made him a liability to the organization.

Let's move on to what happened more recently:

After all this happened, the FSF made a decision to appoint somebody to their BoD (who apparently aims for President) who has shown for the last 20+ years that he's an ineffective communicator, an ineffective campaigner, an absent software maintainer or developer, and a high-maintenance personality (to put it mildly).

So he's not a good match for the role. He also carries that baggage. Yet they picked him.

That doesn't look well for the FSF: Either they don't know better (in which case, wtf are they doing?) or they know better but have found no suitable alternative (in which case they could as well shut down), or - most likely - they're simply helping a buddy back to the steering wheel, which is textbook nepotism.

It also doesn't look well for RMS: Even though he should by now have learned that his presence is a liability for the FSF, he's still going back. That may be good for him personally, but he doesn't seem to care at all for "the cause".

So congrats to RMS for being back to a leadership role (because apparently he won't settle for anything less - a sign of a principled person, indeed), and congrats to the FSF for demonstrating its helplessness.

(Nothing in this piece covers the problem that some people argue that they don't feel safe around him. This is mostly because it's a) not necessary to argue that RMS is a lousy choice for any leadership position, b) something that detractors did claim in the past to be merely a political ploy and that they could bring up again to distract from that RMS is a disaster along all other dimensions as well. While I disagree with the idea that all or even most people are claiming this for political reasons, I'll stick to the bits that aren't potential minefields.)


Stallman probably has some form of autism and it doesn't bother me. Instead, the hypocritical moralism of the vast majority of people is extremely worrying.

@alexl He probably isn't autistic, but even if so, see what an autistic person has to say about that "excuse":

I am not good at social cues. I have, in my time, held quite a few shitty, offensive opinions.
But when people have pointed out how awful those opinions are to me, I've thought "Oh shit, they're right," apologised, and changed my opinions.
Being autistic *can*, on occasion, give some of us a tendency to think of moral questions as interesting hypotheticals to be discussed.
Any autistic person *with a functioning moral compass* learns there are things you don't do that about, by their mid twenties or so at latest.

So, even if RMS has some form of autism (AFAICS autism and living off public speaking is a rare combination), he still seems unsuited for that particular role. If he wants to support the goals of the FSF, he could maintain some GNU codebase or do whatever else helps the FSF, but apparently his priorities lie elsewhere.

@alexl About "he's unsuitable for that role": I disagree with mjg59 on a fair amount of issues, but he certainly gets that bit. When asked if he couldn't run for FSF President, his answer is:

"I'm far too compromised to do that. I've alienated enough of the community that there's no realistic way that any initiative I take any kind of direct responsibility for will ever be meaningfully representative. I can talk about this and I can attempt to help others, but any meaningful effort on my part to do this on my own is doomed to splinter the community more than is necessary. Instead, all I can do is attempt to encourage others to play that role and do what I can to support them."


RMS doesn't seem to care about such details, and he had 18 months to consider that question.

@kinetix @alexl Nah, you can stfu too.


Sorry it seems you don't know what autism is and no, obviously that's not an excuse for everything, it's just that some people fail to understand that certain Stallman behaviors are not to be exploited by his detractors to say "look, he's a weirdo".

@davidrevoy I really like the design and I enjoyed your talk! Thank you very much

@alexl I'm pretty well aware of what Autism is, tyvm.

A highly functioning neurodiverse person (Assuming RMS is on the spectrum he's certainly not in the deep end, given what he did accomplish decades ago) _can_ reflect on their behavior and can adjust for that when dealing with the outside world for the most part. So there could be missteps and (potentially clumsy) apologies after feedback and reflection.

The unapologetic conduct shown by RMS might be driven by Autism underneath, but his refusal to deal with the fallout still makes him an asshole, not some excusable "weirdo":

And at that point, "asshole" is the dominating characteristic.
Using any neurological issue to excuse that only serves to make things harder for all the others who manage to live decent lives (at great emotional and intellectual expense to adapt to their environment) despite their condition. Due to that, if he were to claim autism for himself to excuse his behavior, that would just make him even more of an asshole (but, being entirely fair: he didn't, that's on his groupies.)

To summarize: I don't think he's autistic, but actually it doesn't matter if he is because he's predominantly a self-centered asshole.
And even if we disregard all that: if he's unable to function in society, he's not fit to be a figurehead for an organization because that comes with pretty specific expectations. Any other position? Potentially, but that's not what he's seeking.


I think you didn't read carefully my comment... because I pointed out that some people use Stallman peculiarities that have nothing to do with the matter for dialectical purposes. I am criticizing poor rhetorical tricks, if it were not clear.

@patrick @alexl Yeah it's quite baffling to me that Stallman doesn't do something useful, like, uh, write software that he says other people should write? Nah, he'll just come out of nowhere to obstruct people working on GCC from adding features that already exist in Clang because they might hypothetically be used to make proprietary software better.

@davidrevoy I wonder if distancing that personality cult, let alone the problems with Stallman himself, is the best thing for our movement... How much overlap is there between that crowd & those that villify forks of e.g. GIMP, it takes the same sort of hero worship to miss our principles like that!

P.S. Great talk! And I love your Pepper & Carrot comics!

@davidrevoy You might wanna put your name here as well:

@schmittlauch Done, thank you. ๐Ÿ‘

@be Done by email since 30min; it might take time to get part of the next triage ๐Ÿ™‚ Thanks for the link.

@davidrevoy did you read this:

I read what RMS said and I think the fuss created around misinterpretations and misquotes from what he said is much more harmful to a community at whole, than what he actually said.

@xinayder I read it, it was sent to me a lot this afternoon: I try to read various sources of info to keep rational opinion.

Still, I think if it was only misinterpretations; it would have been easy for him to fix it, clarify, adjust and post disambiguation when it was time. I see that very often on communication issues on other Floss project...

But even when he came back; it was made without clarification, disambiguation: just imposed out of the blue.

Definitely, not my cup of tea... ๐Ÿต

@patrick @alexl
>He probably isn't autistic
His mother own mother told that he would have been categorised as such if the knowledge we have today on it was available in her time.

>But when people have pointed out how awful those opinions are to me, I've thought "Oh shit, they're right," apologised, and changed my opinions.

>AFAICS autism and living off public speaking is a rare combination
It's a spectrum, there are limitless combinations.

@mangeurdenuage @patrick

> It's a spectrum, there are limitless combinations.

Exactly. It's worth mention that the only autistic protagonists featured in a manga (L and Near in Death Note) are shown to be comfortable speaking in public, but despite this I see that the fandom recognizes them as high-functioning autistic.

Still, I think if it was only misinterpretations; it would have been easy for him to fix it, clarify, adjust and post disambiguation when it was time. I see that very often on communication issues on other Floss project...
But even when he came back; it was made without clarification, disambiguation: just imposed out of the blue.

I'm sorry to keep this going, but that's not factual. Things were clarified and disambiguated, first by himself and then to great length by others. Only the clarifications and disambiguations didn't get any of the attention nor the bloodlust of the bashing and accusations.

And I don't understand why "imposed out of the blue". This was the result of an election, a result which was unsurprising given the circumstances under which he was forced to resign, and the support he enjoys. People accuse his supporters of being fanboys, but it's the haters that have taken social media by the storm with battle cries, while his supporters have for the most part tried to bring facts and arguments to the discussion, and sent mentions of support directly to the FSF (to my knowledge numerous, at least considering the people i know) sometimes for fear of mob attacks.

Indeed, any credible source for these claims?


It's unfortunate you think RMS is not good for free software, when he's doing full time voluntary work for advancement of free software for 37 years.

Anyways it's your personal dicision.

@redstarfish @davidrevoy It's wonderful that rms has been working so hard for so many years creating the movement, and we wouldn't be where we are without that work and dedication.

It is unfortunate some of what he does is holding back the credibility and progress of the movement.

He is less suitable as a leader in the 2021 environment than he was in the 1985 environment, and it is unfortunate that some people still brought him back to a leadership position.

@davidrevoy Are you sure you are not falling for a smear campaign here? I recommend reading this:

What does that say beyond "These people were not harassed"?

@silverwizard @davidrevoy That wetheweb text says several things that are relevant here, I really recommend reading it. If you did read it and thought it was nothing, then maybe go back and read again a bit more carefully. One thing it explains is about the thing that triggered it all, the contents of some emails, pointing out that RMS did in fact not say what people claimed. The truth matters, I think. Also... (to be continued)

@silverwizard @davidrevoy That text also says something about the kind of person RMS is, someone who cares a lot about right and wrong and who tends to be frank about his opinions, and how that influenced what happened. It also says something about how rumors can work, and at least for me that makes me think that we should be careful to check what basis we have before accusing someone. If the accusation is serious, that does not mean we should care less about what basis we have for it.

Might I recommend not reading a text about an event that happened less than two years ago and instead remember it.

Remember the stories of undergrad women who had to hide behind plants. Not about the people *in* the movement, but instead the people who were kept out of the movement. About the people RMS hurt, not just those who he didn't.

Do you think that a person defending their hero is the same as hundreds of identical stories?

That's shocking. That says a lot about the board if that's true. What on earth are they doing?

Thanks @hankg I appricate the link.

#RMS is the founder of the @fsf which does good to the world, btw. He is also the spiritual founder of #GNU . Both are big life's work nobody has done before. As I have not seen the scene with my own eyes and only heard it 2nd, I tend to politely disagree with the ladies. Nothing disrespectful towards them. And, the assertions have been falsified against him.

Maybe he needed some downtime from all of this? See it this way: Your whole life has been smashed to pieces, brought down as your life's work is not respected anymore. That's hard to take for everyone.

I know this will raise a lot SJWs against me but I don't care.

@davidrevoy I hope you are doing well. Thank you so much for standing up.

@davidrevoy @xinayder
Just to add another something for the context of the usa. Even ESR got banned from the OSI, and he was a co-founder, and for even less than RMS.

@mangeurdenuage @davidrevoy @xinayder I think you are trying to make the opposite point, but to me the OSI vs esr resolution was perfectly reasonable. There were formal rules of civility, esr didn't live up to them, so he wasn't welcome.

It just shows that rms got away with so much more, including violating the code of conduct at a LibrePlanet, before he had to go.

And yet he's still allowed back at LibrePlanet, that's the first shocker, and on top of that he takes that opportunity to announce that he's back at the FSF, which is even more unbelievable given the number of people who have spoken out about how this would harm the FSF and free software.

@ToonLink blobcatheart I'm doing ok thanks to the focus on last week of production for episode 34 of Pepper&Carrot.

I feel I'll only start to digest emotionaly a lot of things in start April when it will be posted. Thank you very much for sending kind words.

Nobody is claiming RMS is a saint - he even jokes about that himself, as you probably know - but it is a fact that he left the board because about a year ago he was accused with lies and slander about personal views he discussed on an issue whose seriousness he did not belittle and whose victims he did not blame, opinions he had respectfully issued in a friendly forum (a "safe space" in modern jargon). And that this is not the first time people misrepresent his controversial - but not evil and not even ill-meaning - views on social issues. Please see, if you haven't yet (sorry for not introducing them earlier, had to dig this up from year old mail archives):



Unfortunately, those lies and slanders have not been reflected upon at all by the accusers and are at the heart of the renewed attacks. In a more honest, respectful and humane community, this could have led to a productive discussion about his ideas and behavior, for which he is actually known to have retreated in some cases, and more importantly a discussion about our culture and how it embeds us with perspectives that the guillotine only silences but doesn't solve. Instead, what we have is a hard-line mob-rule mad-hatter witch-hunt smear campaign against an individual, that only detracts from our common cause, divides us and crystalizes oppositions, and profits our common opponents.

You know @davidrevoy
that when reputation is hit, it's too late, especially with this type of movement.
The problem is not much about rms but the witch-hunt without respect to the facts and discernment about his condition.
This is kind of putsch and dangerous for the FOSS and freedom of speech.

I don't know why you felt the need to "stand" for, hope this is not for your patreon and youtube audience.



> I don't know why you felt the need to "stand" for
Because my name was attached to the activity of the FSF at the time: 2x Libreplanet talks + FSF35 T-shirts.

> hope this is not for your patreon and youtube audience
No, no one. I was on Libreplanet during the annuncement, I waited 24h to give time of FSF to clarify, and then I took this decision all alone by myself. See the date.

> freedom of speech

> "about his condition"
What condition? (sources?)

@davidrevoy rms is clearly autistic, you are maybe too politically correct to not admit this is a mental disorder but it is. However it does not mean he has a free pass but it is obvious his cold/incomplete view is due to this.

But above all, the manner (fact distortion, lies), the political stunt around this affaire is bad, is bad for the free and opensource movement.

btw, you put the whole FSF in the same basket, where's the diversity?

@krutor Pure garbage. You just don't want to recognize it cause the idealogy nowadays is about to remove all kind of mental disorder from the medical field.
He is clearly autistic, it does not excuse for everything but do not expect him act according your standards, 1st degree apologies, he made it somehow.

i don't tolerate physical and repetitive harrassment but i don't tolerate hysterical mob neither.



agressive + accusation + unsourced = block


This "mea culpa" just talked about a person in position to address RMS behavior but on the contrary he preferred clean up his hands like "Pontio Pilato" and just raising up his head after joining a collective attack against one individual... Very inspiring...

Dear @davidrevoy after reading this I also will stop to follow you.

All of you are confusing personal bias with actual facts, attacking RMS for a behavior which is probably spread over the 90% in whole IT industries at any level. We reached the point to decided if it is better mobbing RMS or closing on eye over GAFAM that every day besides making the world a worst place is injecting moneys in the open source and free software space. I think this is the real point.

At this point RMS hardly is just "one individual". He wasn't picked at random.

This is one of those situations where the method works against the good intentions. If RMS is really an unbearable issue for the whole community the lex talionis is not the right answer.

This ancient rule about settling 1-on-1 disputes doesn't apply here either. RMS didn't do anything to me personally, and yet I believe based on his public words and the various accounts of people who have been around him in a public capacity that he shouldn't get the prominent public role of FSF board member. That's all there is to it.

So do I but the people that publicly stood up against him aren't in a credible nor autonomous position.

So you're saying that public figures cannot have a moral stance? Or do you not believe the women who state that RMS has harassed them?

This is a very subjective stance. Although if you went over his public threads about controversial subjects and didn't see any problem with it regarding public representation, I understand why you would feel the need to discredit the people who publicly stood up to ask for his resignation from his public FSF role.

I did not discredit anyone I just advanced reservation about their intellectual honesty; which I do not trust but you do.

Please don't raise up the topic of the sexual harassment cause there are plenty of real women's lawsuits against IBM, RH, M$, Google and more but none of those people stood up against those corporations... C'mon...

@daniel01 @hypolite @andy @silverwizard @davidrevoy @hankg It's a pretty big difference between one of many individuals at a huge company being brought to justice for criminal behavior and the spokesperson, manager (back in 2019) and founder of a movement and two orgs being told he is not the best spokesperson and manager for the movement and the orgs.

@daniel01 A fair amount of the people on the open letter (to pick a specific set of people) stood up against those corporations in such situations, with the means they had available, which sometimes meant leaving their jobs in protest. It's not quite that visible though as soon as lawsuits and corporations are involved.

That said, "those folks are horrible, too" seems to me to be a weak argument for not getting your own house in order.

Is he claiming that the people who are saying RMS is bad because sexual harassment don't say other people are bad because sexual harassment?!

Dear Hypolite,

we do not know personally each other but I have a true respect for you for some words you gave me once, let's do this pacifically, as friends, even though I have not been honored by this yet.

Advancing reservation about the integrity or good faith of someone because you think he/she might be under, direct or indirect, external pressures is totally legitimate. I have never said once those people lied, I have just said I don't trust their good faith and therefore the double measurement.

And for me the "straw-man" argument is exactly the point since those people are related with those corporations that accidentally are historically against RMS and vice-versa.

When you attack a person over a moral profile you had better to take care from what pulpit you are going to talk, for me the pulpit where those people are talking is not trustworthy.

For what I know those people didn't stand against those corporations publicly but you cannot against a corporation's behavior and simultaneously work or being related with this unless you are applying the aforementioned "double measurement".
What you're doing is setting an impossible moral standard for people to reach and discredit them totally when they inevitably don't, which is textbook intellectual dishonesty.

And not my friend I am not doing anything of this, simply I don't trust those people, and the method, the tone and words those people used just reinforce my position.


Yes, and consequently they are unfairly targeting RMS for <unknown reason>.

You don't have to trust them personally for any reason, but as soon as you voice this reservation publicly like you're doing in this conversation, you better have substantial evidence/arguments to back this reservation otherwise you will expectedly be called out on it like I'm doing.

And no, "they work at a company I don't like the policies" isn't a substantial argument. Double measurement is actually a great part of having a good judgement. You need to be able to appreciate the context difference in order to be fair, otherwise, it'll go like this quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

More importantly, we humans are extremely bad at appreciating other people's judgement based on our own biases and morals. This makes any accusation of "hypocrisy" like you've been doing pretty shallow for me since you just are showing you can't put your self in these people's shoes.

Things are a little bit complex than the way your are laying them out; but basically because, I think, you are assuming that the previous resignation was fair and right.

On the contrary I think the former resignation was wrong while the mediatic campaign on top of that was a big mistification, but overall unrelated with the FSF, since happened in different place with a different role. -- Just to clarify RMS once again missed the opportunity to stay in silence -- and what is happened recently, for me, it is just the its prosecution, eventually are involved practically the same people using the same pattern.

Which claims? There's credible sources for lots of things.

That Stallman's behaviour harms the FSF.

If a grassroots campaign started by a student can lead to the resignation of RMS (and only him) from the FSF, then what more do you need to establish that RMSโ€™s very existence is harmful to the FSF?

Either the allegations were flimsy and he shouldnโ€™t have resigned in the first place, or they werenโ€™t and the FSF shouldnโ€™t have reinstated him. As it stands, the current situation can only be understood as the FSF paying lip service to the RMS resignation campaign and now they feel like they donโ€™t have to anymore, and this is bad optics regardless of what RMS actually did or said.

Let me say that I agree with you over a lot of stuff but I have my personal bias, that is clear.

I tend to agree with you the first campaign was mostly unrelated to the FSF itself. However now the FSF is directly responsible since they privately elected to reinstate RMS as a member of the board after accepting his resignation. So now it actually is less about RMS than the FSF behavior.

If the initial resignation was wrong, they shouldn't have accepted it. Since they went forward with it for whatever reason, rolling it back now is just a terrible public move, and it has little to do with RMS's behavior and speech anymore.

So it really isn't the same issue anymore, although it isn't surprising the same people that were involved in the first campaign are involved in this one, after all RMS is on the FSF board, again.

Also I'd like you not to use any judiciary term about this event since this isn't a trial in a court of law.

The FSF has been a disaster over last years, totally ineffective, a lot of the people against RMS don't follow it from centuries, no one actually follow him, but a lot of people have still a strong feeling against him.

I think the board should resign for the foolishness, who are those people? Anyone can change his mind but because the sensitive RMS' topic they demonstrated a complete lack of wisdom and communication.

I won't support the FSF anymore (I have been actually donate yearly), I engaged them on Fediverse and they never replied, I sent them a lot of emails and them never replied one.

FSF should be a beacon against some nefarious powers but at this point better crush it down and build something completely new. We cannot be anchored to him forever but so far someone with the guts and vision to go against the stream hasn't appear yet.

I tend to agree with you about the FSF, however I don't agree with your dismissal of people who are against RMS despite not following him as I'm among them. Not following RMS is different from him being in a public representation position on the FSF board so regardless of what the FSF was and is now, I believe the initial calls for his resignation were justified. Since then the FSF has proven to be utterly terrible, and neither of these issues require to be actively following RMS to be relevant.

Fair enough, I got and respect your points.

@davidrevoy sure, david, you have almost 40 and you draw only underage girls. Sound fishy to me.

vieux pervers


@davidrevoy sure, david, you have almost 40 and you draw only underage girls. Sound fishy to me.

vieux pervers