• DQ (unregistered)

    So she wants a young (and attractive) male so she can hook him, get married, get pregnant and have her first child so she can ask to work parttime?

  • pouzzler (unregistered)

    The fact that a stupid manager works in IT doesn't make their quirks "curious perversions in Information Technology", but "normal perversions in Management Thinking".

    How many times must various commenters repeat this before you bring in only the clever, fun pieces, rather the rants about stupid bosse?

  • Black Bart (unregistered)

    8B -> 73 -> 69 -> 72 -> 66

    (Linked list, 8B is 2's complement of the least significant BYTE )

  • (cs) in reply to pouzzler
    pouzzler:
    The fact that a stupid manager works in IT doesn't make their quirks "curious perversions in Information Technology", but "normal perversions in Management Thinking".

    How many times must various commenters repeat this before you bring in only the clever, fun pieces, rather the rants about stupid bosse?

    I'm sure that Alex and his crew would love us to submit more clever, fun pieces...

  • pouzzler (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    I'm sure that Alex and his crew would love *us* to submit more clever, fun pieces...

    We don't need a piece a day if it means having the rants from disgruntled ex-workers, rather than gems. Do you? I sure don't.

  • Melnorme (unregistered)

    Women hate hiring other women, news at 11.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to pouzzler
    pouzzler:
    Steve The Cynic:
    I'm sure that Alex and his crew would love *us* to submit more clever, fun pieces...

    We don't need a piece a day if it means having the rants from disgruntled ex-workers, rather than gems. Do you? I sure don't.

    You keep flunking these submissions, and every time I give you a comment, you send back some stupid message about whether or not I should post up more of these management-type submissions. I’m not asking for your opinion, you arrogant little worm!

    I don’t know, it's just courtesy, I guess. Now will you get out of my way and let me run my website, my way?

  • QJo (unregistered)

    TRWTF is why Judith has not been dismissed from her position for breaking every single possible anti-discrimination law in the book. Or is TRWTF that Chris didn't act as the dessperately-needed whistleblower?

  • pouzzler (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    You keep flunking these submissions, and every time I give you a comment, you send back some stupid message about whether or not I should post up more of these management-type submissions. I’m not asking for your opinion, you arrogant little worm!

    I don’t know, it's just courtesy, I guess. Now will you get out of my way and let me run my website, my way?

    You win.

  • MrFox (unregistered)

    Nice, perfect way of resolving the problem. Let the idiot sink in their own shit. Make sure you also tell the rest of your team to start looking for a decent job where they won't get the cruel and stupid treatment.

  • (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    TRWTF is why Judith has not been dismissed from her position for breaking every single possible anti-discrimination law in the book. Or is TRWTF that Chris didn't act as the dessperately-needed whistleblower?

    Complete agreement. Hopefully (assuming the story is based on some reality) he did as part of his exist, at the very least.

  • Moo Cow (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    TRWTF is why Judith has not been dismissed from her position for breaking every single possible anti-discrimination law in the book. Or is TRWTF that Chris didn't act as the dessperately-needed whistleblower?
    That's not even whistleblowing. We're talking about informing her supervisor that she is creating potential, expensive legal trouble for the company. That should get them listening.
  • RFox (unregistered)
    <!-- Actually, that works, but only after you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow while bouncing a graviton particle beam of the main deflector dish-->

    Only if the graviton beam is polarized. Sorry Remy I canna change the laws of physics.

  • (cs) in reply to Moo Cow
    Moo Cow:
    QJo:
    TRWTF is why Judith has not been dismissed from her position for breaking every single possible anti-discrimination law in the book. Or is TRWTF that Chris didn't act as the dessperately-needed whistleblower?
    That's not even whistleblowing. We're talking about informing her supervisor that she is creating potential, expensive legal trouble for the company. That should get them listening.

    Of course HR is just as likely to say who cares unless it can be proven which is nearly impossible. But yeah what a maroon Judith must be to blatantly discriminate.

  • faoileag (unregistered)
    Chris said:
    Walk me through a method that reverses a string
    I have the feeling that that interview question is missing something. Like "in place", "without a loop" or "without a temporary variable".

    Asked as it is (without some restriction), even a complete dummy should be able to produce some pseudo code.

    With the restriction it's part of the "Swap two integers without using a third variable" group of interview quetions.

    CAPTCHA uxor. u xor some bits to achieve this...

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to Moo Cow
    Moo Cow:
    We're talking about informing her supervisor that she is creating potential, expensive legal trouble for the company. That should get them listening.
    As the saying goes: "If you want to kill a project, run it through legal".
  • (cs) in reply to pouzzler
    pouzzler:
    The fact that a stupid manager works in IT doesn't make their quirks "curious perversions in Information Technology", but "normal perversions in Management Thinking".
    You don't actually believe any of that stuff about Judith, do you? The original submission was probably one paragraph with Billy's trick answer to how to reverse a string. TRWTF is the amount of fluff the editors feel it necessary to add.
  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to RFox
    RFox:
    <!-- Actually, that works, but only after you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow while bouncing a graviton particle beam of the main deflector dish-->

    Only if the graviton beam is polarized. Sorry Remy I canna change the laws of physics.

    OR the deflector dish is quantum entangled with a flux capacitor working in reverse mode to generate the neutron flow. Go back to Physics 101, kid.

  • Iggy (unregistered)

    so where are the java gurus? there must be an internal information about string handling.

    basic structure must be:

    typedef enum stringstatus { MIDDLE, START, END, FILE_NOT_FOUND }

    struct string { char currentCharacter; string* nextChar; stringstatus status; }

    with this internal structure one can just add a "backpointer"

    sobilly is right

  • Dude (unregistered) in reply to Iggy

    Except that in java a string is just a char[]. So there's no quick way to reverse it.

  • GWO (unregistered) in reply to pjt33
    You don't actually believe any of that stuff about Judith, do you? The original submission was probably one paragraph with Billy's trick answer to how to reverse a string. TRWTF is the amount of fluff the editors feel it necessary to add.
    And !surprise! the added idiot was a woman. How uncharacteristic. Poor old Remy and his mother issues.
  • agbeladem (unregistered)

    new StringBuilder(string).reverse().toString();

    Define "quick"

  • Kabi (unregistered) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    I have the feeling that that interview question is missing something. Like "in place", "without a loop" or "without a temporary variable".

    Asked as it is (without some restriction), even a complete dummy should be able to produce some pseudo code.

    Seems like I can crush someones faith in humanity, yay...

    Such easy questions are needed because dummies can't answer them. In fact, they should be asked because around 90% of CompSci graduates are not able to answer them. There are enough blog posts in the web that state the same. Just search for "Fizzbuzz" or "Why can't programmers program".

    This is something that I've seen for myself. We were 24 students that graduated in applied computer sciences (basically software development) and only about 7 people could program AT ALL... I still don't understand how they could successfully study for more than 3 years and not create a single running program.

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to agbeladem

    if (str.length() == 1) return str; else throw new FileNotFoundException();

  • (cs) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    Chris said:
    Walk me through a method that reverses a string
    I have the feeling that that interview question is missing something. Like "in place", "without a loop" or "without a temporary variable".
    Don't bet on it.
    faoileag:
    Asked as it is (without some restriction), even a complete dummy should be able to produce some pseudo code.
    Again, don't bet on it. Unless you've done a lot of interviews yourself, you wouldn't believe the "quality" of some of the hopefuls who show up. Even an utterly trivial question like this can serve as a valuable screener.
  • (cs) in reply to GWO
    GWO:
    You don't actually believe any of that stuff about Judith, do you? The original submission was probably one paragraph with Billy's trick answer to how to reverse a string. TRWTF is the amount of fluff the editors feel it necessary to add.
    And !surprise! the added idiot was a woman. How uncharacteristic. Poor old Remy and his mother issues.
    I wonder what cognitive bias is causing neither of you to consider the possibility that the original submission was about the manager, and it was Billy's technobabble answer that was the added fluff? It seems pretty plausible that way round to me.
  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to Kabi
    Kabi:
    faoileag:
    even a complete dummy should be able to produce some pseudo code.
    Seems like I can crush someones faith in humanity, yay..
    DaveK:
    faoileag:
    even a complete dummy should be able to produce some pseudo code.
    Again, don't bet on it
    Now I feel depressed.

    Of course I've heard / read the stories but so far I haven't met wanna-be programmers that bad in the wild.

    Although I must admit I haven't been on the employer's side of the interview table so far...

  • Dude (unregistered) in reply to agbeladem
    agbeladem:
    new StringBuilder(string).reverse().toString();

    Define "quick"

    Oddly enough, StringBuilder also uses an array internally. Calling reverse on it does an in-place array reversal with some logic to handle multibyte utf-16.

  • (cs) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    I wonder what cognitive bias is causing neither of you to consider the possibility that the original submission was about the manager, and it was Billy's technobabble answer that was the added fluff? It seems pretty plausible that way round to me.
    I'm going for the string reversal as the original for two reasons: firstly, because it's the most creative part of the whole story; secondly, because it's the best fit for what "Tales from the Interview" is supposed to be about.
  • (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    pouzzler:
    Steve The Cynic:
    I'm sure that Alex and his crew would love *us* to submit more clever, fun pieces...

    We don't need a piece a day if it means having the rants from disgruntled ex-workers, rather than gems. Do you? I sure don't.

    You keep flunking these submissions, and every time I give you a comment, you send back some stupid message about whether or not I should post up more of these management-type submissions. I’m not asking for your opinion, you arrogant little worm!

    I don’t know, it's just courtesy, I guess. Now will you get out of my way and let me run my website, my way?

    Lol.

  • anonymous (unregistered)
    “That… that isn’t a valid reason to not hire someone,” Chris said.
    BZZZT! WRONG ANSWER.

    The answer you were looking for is "That is an illegal reason to not hire someone, and you could be exposing the company to serious legal charges just for expressing that concern."

    Of course, it's a big plus if you got her to put that into writing. If not, it'll be an uphill battle to prove anything when she fires you. On the plus side, it'll probably be easier to successfully argue that your firing was unjustified than to prove that the decision to not hire Lisa was made based on illegal reasons.

  • GWO (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    I wonder what cognitive bias is causing neither of you to consider the possibility that the original submission was about the manager, and it was Billy's technobabble answer that was the added fluff?
    That would be "experience of having read this site for a while, and seen the tropes that get dragged in to flesh thin stories out (HR, incompetent women [always women!], bad writing)"

    Also - Occam's Razor: which of these stories do you think more likely: a) candidate couldn't do a simple programming task, and tried to bluff it by regurgitating those bits of his course he could remember. b) A HR professional - not only completely ignorant of employment law on discriminatory practices, but happily admitting it - is also allowed to overrule the technical lead in an interview on a technical question, causing the technical lead to resign.

    Clue: The first one happens all the time. The second one is somewhere between quite implausible and totally made-up.

    So, Remy, or submitter, which bit is true?

  • dpm (unregistered)

    I'm even more annoyed than usual with the editing of this story, because actual useful knowledge --- American vs. European maternity leave --- is hidden in the comments.

  • Le Forgeron (unregistered) in reply to Kabi
    Kabi:
    This is something that I've seen for myself. We were 24 students that graduated in applied computer sciences (basically software development) and only about 7 people could program AT ALL... I still don't understand how they could successfully study for more than 3 years and not create a single running program.

    Because Paula cannot be everywhere, so 17 fresh people are to do the same great work.

    Some CS exercise are the same from last year, so fraternities will gladly provide the answer. Or the older year's students for some money too.

    And often they are done in team (of 2 or more): a team needs only one programmer, everything else is either noise, parasite or pretty documentation.

  • Andrew (unregistered)

    Judith being concerned about the woman getting married is hardly a WTF. A key developer going on leave for a year has the potential to destroy a project's viability.

    Whether it sets off your PC sensitivities or not, the fact of the matter is that young, fertile women are much riskier hires than young, fertile men. Judith was just being brutally honest.

    But the rest of the story is a complete WTF on Judith's part.

  • (cs) in reply to GWO
    GWO:
    I wonder what cognitive bias is causing neither of you to consider the possibility that the original submission was about the manager, and it was Billy's technobabble answer that was the added fluff?
    That would be "experience of having read this site for a while, and seen the tropes that get dragged in to flesh thin stories out (HR, incompetent women [always women!], bad writing)"

    Also - Occam's Razor: which of these stories do you think more likely: a) candidate couldn't do a simple programming task, and tried to bluff it by regurgitating those bits of his course he could remember. b) A HR professional - not only completely ignorant of employment law on discriminatory practices, but happily admitting it - is also allowed to overrule the technical lead in an interview on a technical question, causing the technical lead to resign.

    Clue: The first one happens all the time. The second one is somewhere between quite implausible and totally made-up.

    So, Remy, or submitter, which bit is true?

    I'm not sure what HR professional you're talking about. Judith was the team lead.

  • rekcuf rehtom uoy siht esrever (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that I was actually asked to reverse a string in a job interview once - because that comes up some often in real world programming.

  • airdrik (unregistered) in reply to GWO
    GWO:
    I wonder what cognitive bias is causing neither of you to consider the possibility that the original submission was about the manager, and it was Billy's technobabble answer that was the added fluff?
    That would be "experience of having read this site for a while, and seen the tropes that get dragged in to flesh thin stories out (HR, incompetent women [always women!], bad writing)"

    Also - Occam's Razor: which of these stories do you think more likely: a) candidate couldn't do a simple programming task, and tried to bluff it by regurgitating those bits of his course he could remember. b) A HR professional - not only completely ignorant of employment law on discriminatory practices, but happily admitting it - is also allowed to overrule the technical lead in an interview on a technical question, causing the technical lead to resign.

    Clue: The first one happens all the time. The second one is somewhere between quite implausible and totally made-up.

    So, Remy, or submitter, which bit is true?

    I see both as similarly plausible. The first one isn't really much of a story as it is mostly that some candidate started spouting out bits of technobabble when he was fronted by something he didn't know. The second is hardly all that unlikely given a mildly backwards company with an underinvolved HR, where the manager (who is not an HR professional, and is likely undertrained with respect to legal hiring practices) decides that she has her own ideals for what she wants for her own [s]interests[/s] team.

    I suspect that they were two different submissions that were glued together. Either that or they were both made up

  • (cs) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    faoileag:
    Chris said:
    Walk me through a method that reverses a string
    I have the feeling that that interview question is missing something. Like "in place", "without a loop" or "without a temporary variable".
    Don't bet on it.
    faoileag:
    Asked as it is (without some restriction), even a complete dummy should be able to produce some pseudo code.
    Again, don't bet on it. Unless you've done a lot of interviews yourself, you wouldn't believe the "quality" of some of the hopefuls who show up. Even an utterly trivial question like this can serve as a valuable screener.
    +1.

    As the head of a developer team, my boss expects me to fill any open positions. I've seen the need for easy screen questions like this more times than you can count.

  • (cs) in reply to GWO
    GWO:
    Also - Occam's Razor: which of these stories do you think more likely: a) candidate couldn't do a simple programming task, and tried to bluff it by regurgitating those bits of his course he could remember. b) A HR professional - not only completely ignorant of employment law on discriminatory practices, but happily admitting it - is also allowed to overrule the technical lead in an interview on a technical question, causing the technical lead to resign.

    Clue: The first one happens all the time. The second one is somewhere between quite implausible and totally made-up.

    Even if we ignore your mistake about 'Judith' being HR, those two still basically amount to the same thing - supposed professional is in fact ignorant of their job and tries to get by on bullshit - so are both plausible and Occam's razor is not going to slice them apart.
  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    Judith being concerned about the woman getting married is hardly a WTF. A key developer going on leave for a year has the potential to destroy a project's viability.

    Whether it sets off your PC sensitivities or not, the fact of the matter is that young, fertile women are much riskier hires than young, fertile men. Judith was just being brutally honest.

    But the rest of the story is a complete WTF on Judith's part.

    Clue bat incoming: A big ugly lawsuit for illegal discrimination in your hiring practices also has the potential to destroy your project's viability. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with PC sensitivities.

    In fact, just because Lisa mentioned her pending marriage and later wasn't hired, even if Judith never asked her about it and the information was simply volunteered, Judith needs to carefully document some legal and justifiable reasons for not hiring Lisa, or she'll end up looking very guilty if Lisa does come back with a lawsuit.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    if (str.length() == 1) return str; else throw new FileNotFoundException();

    Yeah, well that's just HR, CYA kind of stuff.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    Andrew:
    Judith being concerned about the woman getting married is hardly a WTF. A key developer going on leave for a year has the potential to destroy a project's viability.

    Whether it sets off your PC sensitivities or not, the fact of the matter is that young, fertile women are much riskier hires than young, fertile men. Judith was just being brutally honest.

    But the rest of the story is a complete WTF on Judith's part.

    Clue bat incoming: A big ugly lawsuit for illegal discrimination in your hiring practices also has the potential to destroy your project's viability. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with PC sensitivities.

    In fact, just because Lisa mentioned her pending marriage and later wasn't hired, even if Judith never asked her about it and the information was simply volunteered, Judith needs to carefully document some legal and justifiable reasons for not hiring Lisa, or she'll end up looking very guilty if Lisa does come back with a lawsuit.

    It's worth mentioning that there's always the potential to get a candidate who drops bits of information about a legally protected status during their interview specifically so that they can sue you if you don't hire them. Or just because they don't really want to work for an insufferable asshole boss who begrudges the lawfully-required reasonable accommodations they require, so they want to sound out your reaction when they mention it. Documenting good reasons for hiring or not hiring provides you a healthy measure of CYA.

  • JonC (unregistered) in reply to abarker
    abarker:
    DaveK:
    faoileag:
    Chris said:
    Walk me through a method that reverses a string
    I have the feeling that that interview question is missing something. Like "in place", "without a loop" or "without a temporary variable".
    Don't bet on it.
    faoileag:
    Asked as it is (without some restriction), even a complete dummy should be able to produce some pseudo code.
    Again, don't bet on it. Unless you've done a lot of interviews yourself, you wouldn't believe the "quality" of some of the hopefuls who show up. Even an utterly trivial question like this can serve as a valuable screener.
    +1.

    As the head of a developer team, my boss expects me to fill any open positions. I've seen the need for easy screen questions like this more times than you can count.

    One of my favourites was a candidate for a C# position who thought that composition in object oriented programming was using partial classes (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/wa80x488.aspx)

    Thankfully that was a phone screening so I got it over with as quickly as possible.

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to agbeladem
    agbeladem:
    new StringBuilder(string).reverse().toString();

    Define "quick"

    "quick": Adjective: Not using Java.

  • Rudolf (unregistered) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    Judith being concerned about the woman getting married is hardly a WTF. A key developer going on leave for a year has the potential to destroy a project's viability.

    Whether it sets off your PC sensitivities or not, the fact of the matter is that young, fertile women are much riskier hires than young, fertile men. Judith was just being brutally honest.

    The real WTF is that due to PC oversensitivity, you're not even allowed to ask the question. In my view it's perfectly legitimate for an employer to ask 'are you planning on having kids soon?' (both to men and women), just as you can ask 'do you have any holidays already booked?'

    (Hopefully the employee will realise that them taking 6-12 months leave will be inconvenient to the employer. If they don't care, then that shows something about the employee's attitude).

    But, because you can't ask, it just means that ALL young women are 'silently' discriminated against - even if they have no intention of having kids, or even can't.

    The discrimination may not be as overt as Judith's, but it is there.

  • John Appleseed (unregistered) in reply to rekcuf rehtom uoy siht esrever
    rekcuf rehtom uoy siht esrever:
    TRWTF is that I was actually asked to reverse a string in a job interview once - because that comes up some often in real world programming.

    I always ask candidates to reverse a string. It's normally the first technical question I ask, and the questions get progressively more difficult, but about a quarter of the people I interview can't perform this trivial task, and it's a good way to terminate that interview early.

    Question 2 is generally to ask them to print out all the unsigned integers from the highest possible down to 0. Some things that go wrong here:

    • the loop increments rather than decrements (!)
    • getting the step wrong, normally by having 2 decrements per loop, I just don't...
    • using an int not an unsigned int
    • starting from some arbitrary value (eg: 100) - apparently higher numbers don't exist ?
    • looping infinitely because they just used while(i-- > 0). This is very common

    I'm not anal about whiteboard code. I don't care if you use printf() without #including stdio.h I don't care if you miss a semicolon at the end of a line. I do care if you use an int when I asked for unsigned ints though because your code's logical structure doesn't do what I asked.

    I've asked that loop question over 100 times. Maybe 5 people have got it right first time. 5. [sigh]

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Rudolf
    Rudolf:
    Andrew:
    Judith being concerned about the woman getting married is hardly a WTF. A key developer going on leave for a year has the potential to destroy a project's viability.

    Whether it sets off your PC sensitivities or not, the fact of the matter is that young, fertile women are much riskier hires than young, fertile men. Judith was just being brutally honest.

    The real WTF is that due to PC oversensitivity, you're not even allowed to ask the question. In my view it's perfectly legitimate for an employer to ask 'are you planning on having kids soon?' (both to men and women), just as you can ask 'do you have any holidays already booked?'

    (Hopefully the employee will realise that them taking 6-12 months leave will be inconvenient to the employer. If they don't care, then that shows something about the employee's attitude).

    But, because you can't ask, it just means that ALL young women are 'silently' discriminated against - even if they have no intention of having kids, or even can't.

    The discrimination may not be as overt as Judith's, but it is there.

    It is a necessary evil to protect employees from employers who'd otherwise fabricate some reason to fire them as soon as they get pregnant or have some extended time off due to injury or sickness.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to John Appleseed
    John Appleseed:
    rekcuf rehtom uoy siht esrever:
    TRWTF is that I was actually asked to reverse a string in a job interview once - because that comes up some often in real world programming.

    I always ask candidates to reverse a string. It's normally the first technical question I ask, and the questions get progressively more difficult, but about a quarter of the people I interview can't perform this trivial task, and it's a good way to terminate that interview early.

    Question 2 is generally to ask them to print out all the unsigned integers from the highest possible down to 0. Some things that go wrong here:

    • the loop increments rather than decrements (!)
    • getting the step wrong, normally by having 2 decrements per loop, I just don't...
    • using an int not an unsigned int
    • starting from some arbitrary value (eg: 100) - apparently higher numbers don't exist ?
    • looping infinitely because they just used while(i-- > 0). This is very common

    I'm not anal about whiteboard code. I don't care if you use printf() without #including stdio.h I don't care if you miss a semicolon at the end of a line. I do care if you use an int when I asked for unsigned ints though because your code's logical structure doesn't do what I asked.

    I've asked that loop question over 100 times. Maybe 5 people have got it right first time. 5. [sigh]

    To be fair, using while (i-- > 0) is something that could trip up even an experienced programmer now and then. Especially if they're not allowed to test-run their code. Getting it exactly right on the first try is a steep requirement.
  • You're Boss (unregistered) in reply to Rudolf
    Rudolf:
    Andrew:
    Judith being concerned about the woman getting married is hardly a WTF. A key developer going on leave for a year has the potential to destroy a project's viability.

    Whether it sets off your PC sensitivities or not, the fact of the matter is that young, fertile women are much riskier hires than young, fertile men. Judith was just being brutally honest.

    The real WTF is that due to PC oversensitivity, you're not even allowed to ask the question. In my view it's perfectly legitimate for an employer to ask 'are you planning on having kids soon?' (both to men and women), just as you can ask 'do you have any holidays already booked?'

    (Hopefully the employee will realise that them taking 6-12 months leave will be inconvenient to the employer. If they don't care, then that shows something about the employee's attitude).

    But, because you can't ask, it just means that ALL young women are 'silently' discriminated against - even if they have no intention of having kids, or even can't.

    The discrimination may not be as overt as Judith's, but it is there.

    There's an easy way to fix problems like this. Just pay women less in direct proportion to the statistical risk.

Leave a comment on “Disqualified Candidates”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article