What's the more human thing to do in this series?

edited November 2012 in The Walking Dead
What do you think is the more human thing to do in this series? As a person with morals etc. have you

-Killed Larry with Kenny (Ep 2)
-Sacrificed Ben (Ep 4)

done any of this in the game?
«13

Comments

  • edited November 2012
    I killed Larry. Kenny was right Larry would kill us all
  • edited November 2012
    Either of those choices can be argued as being morally right. I think letting Ben die was wrong, however. Personally, I think it was morally right to kill Larry and keep him from coming back, which would have resulted in the deaths of everyone in the meat locker, Kat and Duck, along with Carley/Doug and Ben. My Lee doesn't risk the lives of the entire group just for one person who, IMO, was dead anyway. That doesn't mean I liked doing it.
  • edited November 2012
    There's no justifiable reason for letting Ben die. As for Larry, how difficult would it have been to wait a few moments and then smash in Zombie Larry's head? Kenny made a choice that was not his to make.
  • edited November 2012
    If Ben winds up causing someone's death in Ep 5 AGAIN, say Clem for example, and killing him in 4 would've prevented that, would you still say it wasn't justifiable to kill him? In the same way Larry was a threat to the group (honestly, think we should've gotten rid of him and Lilly earlier) Ben is too. In the ZA you have to have people you can trust to have your back. Ben's fuckups aren't even because he dislikes you, it's because he is incompetent and nothing will fix that.
  • edited November 2012
    I didn't kill either.
    I don't see how can justify something, using what may or may not happen in the future.
  • edited November 2012
    In a Z.A., natural selection would reassert it self. The weak, sickly those unable to adapt would be expendable for the betterment of the whole, group or tribe so to speak. Going against that would be to the detriment of the remnants of humanity as a whole. It's one of the ways I felt Crawford was doomed to failure as children would be precious and necessary to the survival of the human species.
  • edited November 2012
    I often find myself forgetting what I wanted my character to be like, and reacting in the moment, which I think uniquely sets this game apart from others. The moral ambiguity is the best thing and it's USP.

    Taking the Larry and Ben things in turn;

    Larry: I chose to kill him. He would turn, we would die, and I didn't know what would happen by deciding otherwise, however I knew EXACTLY what would happen if we killed him. I chose to know my path. I( was quite shocked that Lilly forgave or at least tolerated Lee/Kenny after that with such ease. Perhaps this indicates that whilst morally, killing can't be condoned, the fact the ZPoc has arrived means morals are out of the window, and only survival matters.

    Ben: The guy is a complete f*&k up. He did what he thought was right with the bandits...i can deal with that. However on 3 occasions he left Clem alone on her own, despite explicit instructions to the contrary. Whilst indirectly responsible for Duck and Katjaa, none of that would have happened without many circumstances before Ben's arrival (not least the ZPoc), so I could get over that. It was the Clem issue that had me thinking. In the end I remember thinking, I might get the opportunity to utilise Ben in a tough situation later in the game, so chose to save him.

    Only thing I want to say is that I noticed that some of the dialogue in Ep 4 was less deep. Answering questions positively and then negatively produced dramatic u-turns by the characters (not least when asking for help to save Clem).

    Great game though...roll on Ep 5 and Season 2.
  • edited November 2012
    For me none of this propositions really are "human", it's more a question of wether or not doing it will give something in our survival chances.

    For Larry I chose to kill him after a moment of reflexion, killing him made me guilty but we couldn't know if he would come back as a zombie or not. And it was a too big risk.
    For Ben I chose to save him because even if he caused a lot of trouble indirectly there's no real reason to kill someone even if he is a really bad guy, and I think I like this character even so he is not brave.
  • edited November 2012
    aperose wrote: »
    If Ben winds up causing someone's death in Ep 5 AGAIN, say Clem for example, and killing him in 4 would've prevented that, would you still say it wasn't justifiable to kill him? In the same way Larry was a threat to the group (honestly, think we should've gotten rid of him and Lilly earlier) Ben is too. In the ZA you have to have people you can trust to have your back. Ben's fuckups aren't even because he dislikes you, it's because he is incompetent and nothing will fix that.

    Actually, it would still be ethically and morally wrong to let Ben die if you could save him. You can't predict the future, and Ben's screw-ups are his responsibility - not yours. You can't sacrifice a person for what they *might* do. If you follow that logic, then Clem should be sacrificed because as a child she *might* draw the zombies to you through her inexperience. It's a slippery slope trying to claim that it's justifiable to kill Ben.

    Ben's fuck-ups are because the rest of the group don't pay attention to him and don't keep him in the loop.

    - The Bandits fuck-up was because Lily and Kenny engendered a hostile and distrustful atmosphere at the motel - so Ben was too scared to tell anyone what he was up to.
    - Carly's death was purely Lily's own paranoia brought about by Kenny's murder of her father. You can't blame Ben for something that was out of his control.
    - The school attack was because nobody told Ben that the zombies had gotten that far into the building and had send him out looking for something like an axe to break down the door. How hard would it have been for Kenny to say "oh, and don't take the axe out of the door."
    - Brie's death was because Kenny decided to force a vote when everyone's lives were in serious danger. Ben was stupid to tell Kenny, but he's a kid trying to deal with guilt that KENNY had been unwittingly been dumping on him.

    The fact is, the more people blame Ben then the more likely he'll screw up. What Ben needs is to have someone believe in him and keep him informed rather than just boss him around. I believe he's going to step up to the plate in the final episode.

    As for Larry - again, nobody knew if he would come back as a zombie or if he could be resuscitated before he turned. They should have tried to resuscitate him and been ready to kill him if he ended up turning.
  • edited November 2012
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    There's no justifiable reason for letting Ben die.
    How about survival instincts? If someone is constantly putting your life or the life of a loved one at risk, would you not kill to protect them? Lets give another example...a person is crying loudly in pain and he wont listen to reason...would you do whatever it took to shut him up if it would save your life?
    Evinshir wrote: »
    Ben's fuck-ups are because the rest of the group don't pay attention to him and don't keep him in the loop.
    How unclear is it when you say "if anything happens to clementine while I'm gone it is your ass." And then HE LOSES HER?!
  • edited November 2012
    Larry was dead anyways.
    As soon as he grabbed his chest i knew that we were way too far from the motor inn, and way too close to these cannibals for him to come out of that locker a survivor. And two heart attacks in 2 episodes, this couldve been a theme in the next couple of episodes
    Episode 3: Larry- The bandits are att........... thump.
    Lee- Damnit not this again
    Then in episode 4 Omid could've had a roomate
  • edited November 2012


    How unclear is it when you say "if anything happens to clementine while I'm gone it is your ass." And then HE LOSES HER?!
    When he gets called upstairs to help a man with a broken leg and Clem had promised to stay in the house while Lee was out?

    Clementine was to blame, not Ben. She chose to sneak out when she had the chance. Ben's only fault there was to trust that she'd respect Lee's wishes.

    Again - Ben gets blamed for the actions of others. It's not incompetence, just another honest mistake that anyone could make. What's he supposed to do? Say no to Christa when she asks for his help because he has to sit in a room and watch a girl. Then get accused of using Clem as an excuse for not doing anything?

    Beyond that - that's still no reason to let him die.
  • edited November 2012
    Evinshir wrote: »
    When he gets called upstairs to help a man with a broken leg and Clem had promised to stay in the house while Lee was out?

    Clementine was to blame, not Ben. She chose to sneak out when she had the chance. Ben's only fault there was to trust that she'd respect Lee's wishes.

    Again - Ben gets blamed for the actions of others. It's not incompetence, just another honest mistake that anyone could make. What's he supposed to do? Say no to Christa when she asks for his help because he has to sit in a room and watch a girl. Then get accused of using Clem as an excuse for not doing anything?

    Beyond that - that's still no reason to let him die.
    as if that is the first time he has fucked up...and I mean royally. Reallly, you are with a group of survivors and you see an axe in the door holding it closed...you pick it up? You are with a little girl and you have a gun and you leave her to the zombies? Despite being told implicitly that telling kenny would be a bad fucking idea at this time, and after he says he understands you...he does it anyway at the worst fucking time?
  • edited November 2012
    Nobody told Ben not to remove the axe from the door handles holding back the herd of Zs? Really? ' 'cause he's not a child & if he so incapable of making critical observations then he's not worth having in the group or risking anyones skin for.
    What value has he brought to the group? What does Ben bring to the table? I you hadnt happened along on him and his party of misfits he would have died in the forest with them. So other than a disaster looking to happen and another mouth to feed what use is he to anyones survival , keeping in mind this isnt normal modern polite society..
    Its the diff between Ricks, Shanes & the Govenors style of leadership, and youll notice how Rick becomes less.his "lawful good" self as time goes on and he adapts to the world of a ZA.
  • edited November 2012
    No, and no.

    Though, looking back, saving Larry was impractical.

    If I ran it again, I'd be first in line to give him a salt-lick transplant.
  • edited November 2012
    Malphaxis wrote: »
    Nobody told Ben not to remove the axe from the door handles holding back the herd of Zs? Really? ' 'cause he's not a child & if he so incapable of making critical observations then he's not worth having in the group or risking anyones skin for.
    What value has he brought to the group? What does Ben bring to the table? I you hadnt happened along on him and his party of misfits he would have died in the forest with them. So other than a disaster looking to happen and another mouth to feed what use is he to anyones survival , keeping in mind this isnt normal modern polite society..
    Its the diff between Ricks, Shanes & the Govenors style of leadership, and youll notice how Rick becomes less.his "lawful good" self as time goes on and he adapts to the world of a ZA.

    I feel that being in a zombie apocalypse is even more reason to value every life. Measuring people by their "value" is a sure fire way to guarantee you don't survive. The whole point we developed a modern polite society is because humanity as a species worked out early on that loners don't last long. If you devalue people, they will devalue you. Which means they are more likely to let you die. How you treat your weakest is a measure of how well you will be treated at your weakest moment.

    I'd save Ben every time.
  • edited November 2012
    Ben: The kid has been a complete screw-up since Day 1. Even if he was too scared to talk to Kenny or Lilly he had no excuse to not talk to Lee and frankly, in the ZA, you shouldn't be giving away supplies, let alone medicine, without the consent of the group. Due to there being an unknown thief in the group, Lilly grew more paranoid, the bandits attack anyway while the group is unprepared after the supplies are found, Duck, Katjaa, and Carley/Doug die, Kenny loses his family, and you lose all the supplies and medicine you had to leave behind in the motel. Then Chuck dies because Ben is too much a coward to shoot a few walkers and too panicky to grab Clem's hand when he runs. Then he gets a snarky attitude for the first half of Ep. 4 even though he can't do his one job which is to keep an eye on Clem and tries to talk back when Lee gets rightfully upset after Clem shows up in the street where you're fighting Molly and again when she disappears before the boat is found. Finally, Crawford, Brie dies, and the whole group could've died if things went just a little worse all because Ben takes a hatchet that is clearly barring the only door that's between you and the walkers. Even if you don't know that there are walkers in the building, you know there are walkers outside, and you shouldn't remove what's blocking the only door between your group and the walkers without even checking with anyone else first. On the plus side, Ben's just a naive, generally good-natured, timid, dumb-as-bricks kid which unfortunately doesn't make the people that die due to him any less dead. By the end of Ep. 4 getting rid of Ben is no longer a matter of morality, IMO, it's just good sense. I'd give him to Vernon instead, if I had a choice, but I didn't.

    Larry: Since I know CPR alone doesn't really work for heart attack victims now, there's only 1 valid choice, IMO, since Larry coming back as a walker is more a matter of when than if. And when Larry comes back, if the group is still in the meat-locker, Lee and Kenny alone won't be able to beat Walker Larry and it will result in everyone in that room dying.
  • edited November 2012
    TO evin and other i saved ben group members..

    What are you smokin ?

    so regardless of how many times ben has caused death you'd keep him with you ?

    as i pointed out in one of my threads, link here http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37857

    seriously common sense is extinct..

    So saving every life no matter the pro's and cons of the choice is frankly mind boggling.

    survivor a) oh look a guy with an arm trapped needs help lets save him

    result of a) he dies from blood loss, turns and bites the nurse/medic,

    result a2) the medic then needs help from a less qualified person

    result a3) the medic suffers the same fate as result a

    this cycle repeats till someone with a half a brain puts the walkers down/ leaves the camp.

    thats pretty much what bens done.

    larry was an asshole and was a ticking time bomb once his meds ran out.

    regardless of who 'needed' ben more, ben made lee a deal to protect clem, he decided a guy with a bad leg was more important. when he's already shown how useless he is why would christa rely on him ? true it's abit messy and gory to involve clem but she'd be way more usefull.

    to save everyone is noble and shows morale fibre and your humanity and the 'future generations' would be proud BUT if there's no one left to tell your story because all the stupid people killed your group..your story ends....

    so i'll close this statment with two outcomes:

    if ben survives and becomes a hero and doesn't cause any more death = makes dropping him stupid and makes a mockery of the character's basic premise in that he's an idiot.

    if ben dies like the stupid bitch he is with more deaths caused by his naivity = i will laugh my man boobs off to the point where they reach orbit and are shot down as ufo's
  • edited November 2012
    to save everyone is noble and shows morale fibre and your humanity and the 'future generations' would be proud BUT if there's no one left to tell your story because all the stupid people killed your group..your story ends....

    And thats it in a nutshell.
    You do have such a uniquely eloquent way of slicing through the minutia you word smith you. :cool:
  • edited November 2012
    to save everyone is noble and shows morale fibre and your humanity and the 'future generations' would be proud BUT if there's no one left to tell your story because all the stupid people killed your group..your story ends....

    so i'll close this statment with two outcomes:

    if ben survives and becomes a hero and doesn't cause any more death = makes dropping him stupid and makes a mockery of the character's basic premise in that he's an idiot.

    Except that isn't his basic premise. His basic premise is that he's a teenager seriously out of his depth trying to survive an apocalypse. YOU have made the assumption that he's an idiot.

    I, however, give TTG more credit than making their characters one note stereotypes. So if Ben does just end up being stupid, I will be surprised. Because that isn't how he has been represented in the actual game. That is just how some people have chosen to interpret his character.

    Edit: You also make a fundamental flaw in your argument by assuming that sticking to your morals guarantees death. The point is, if you have reason to believe that someone WILL get you killed, then you find a way to not put them in those situations. You don't make them the leader, you don't give them the riskiest job. You work with them and help them get over their shortcomings. THAT's how you survive. Not by killing them off.
  • edited November 2012
    Rock114 wrote: »
    Either of those choices can be argued as being morally right. I think letting Ben die was wrong, however. Personally, I think it was morally right to kill Larry and keep him from coming back, which would have resulted in the deaths of everyone in the meat locker, Kat and Duck, along with Carley/Doug and Ben. My Lee doesn't risk the lives of the entire group just for one person who, IMO, was dead anyway. That doesn't mean I liked doing it.

    I would have agreed to kill Larry if he was was BITTEN but his status was so ambiguous that it was wrong to be hasty and kill someone when you have no idea. It's the only time when I disagreed with Kenny.
  • edited November 2012
    If there had been more selections, I would have restrained Larry using clothes and salt licks. It would be funny if he woke up with no shirt and two guys standing over him in their underwear. Plus, there would be two guys in their underwear xd. Luckily ,for some, some people don't see being an asshole, or inexperienced etc. as big enough reasons for killing someone.

    This is probably why crawford fell, when things started going wrong, rather than looking out for each other,they were only looking out for themselves - screw everyone else.
  • edited November 2012
    Evinshir wrote: »
    .

    Edit: You also make a fundamental flaw in your argument by assuming that sticking to your morals guarantees death. The point is, if you have reason to believe that someone WILL get you killed, then you find a way to not put them in those situations. You don't make them the leader, you don't give them the riskiest job. You work with them and help them get over their shortcomings. THAT's how you survive. Not by killing them off.

    sounds alot like what your doing more so than me..

    ben wasn't given any sort of big responcibilty other than clem, YET he still fucked up and got people killed..

    lee has tried to set him straight in a baptism of fire kinda way and warned him later on he's seconds from death and he says drop me....

    ben gave up he wanted to die..why would you go against his wishes? why would you allow an obvious suicidal person to stay with you ? all he's going to do is find danger and try to die which then leads others in to the same situation to 'save him' which then causes more problems.

    oh yeah it's human it's moraly rich and good for everyone

    seriously...
  • edited November 2012
    sounds alot like what your doing more so than me..

    ben wasn't given any sort of big responcibilty other than clem, YET he still fucked up and got people killed..

    lee has tried to set him straight in a baptism of fire kinda way and warned him later on he's seconds from death and he says drop me....

    ben gave up he wanted to die..why would you go against his wishes? why would you allow an obvious suicidal person to stay with you ? all he's going to do is find danger and try to die which then leads others in to the same situation to 'save him' which then causes more problems.

    oh yeah it's human it's moraly rich and good for everyone

    seriously...
    He's not suicidal, the only reason he wanted to be dropped is because he thought doing that it would give time for the rest of us to get away from the walkers in crawford. So I don't know where trying to get here.
    seriously...
  • edited November 2012
    SonnyN18 wrote: »
    He's not suicidal, the only reason he wanted to be dropped is because he thought doing that it would give time for the rest of us to get away from the walkers in crawford. So I don't know where trying to get here.
    seriously...

    So the first time he can be of use to the group and you take that away from him?
  • edited November 2012
    suicide = choosing to end your life on your own terms, ben asked to be dropped and let go of lee's hand.

    lol cthulu nice point.

    almost can't be arsed with this thread anymore....
  • edited November 2012
    When decisions need to be made more often than not you don't have the luxury of pausing to gather your thoughts, questioning what's the moral call or discussing with the group & thinking it through. It needs to be an instinctual & reactionary response.
    And I think this is where many of you've missed the boat.
    I'm not trying to tell you you need to give up on virtue & I'm not Satan tempting you to relinquish your soul or to come to the dark side.
    Lemme put it this way, in a time before modern society, humans would gather at the camp fire and listen to the elders tales of hunts and conflicts.
    To the "warriors" and young adults it was a given that the elders knew what they were talking about because through their leadership the tribe/group had survived thus far. There was simply no place for moral ambiguity. To ignore the wisdom was foolhardy and placed the lives of everyone at risk. Furthermore there was no place for individual think, the group/tribe was more important than any one member, and the group would harshly punish or cast out those who didn't conform, more often than not resulting in death.
    In a ZA or any world wide extinction event those who would be able to revert to early mans survival modes & life styles would be the ones who'd survive. This isn't a question of judgment, it's a simple fact. There would be no "right" to survive nor would there be any moral or human aspect to it. You simply would or would not.
    If the species prevailed then once again society would evolve to a point where there would be a place for personal liberty, rights and moral judgment, but only if.
  • edited November 2012
    Malphaxis wrote: »
    .
    And I think this is where many of you've missed the boat.

    putting it mildly ;)

    all this pro ben stuff is repeating he has rights, he's human, it's moral to save him.

    but as mal has put it assuming the pro ben camp did this on the 'first' play through then it may hold water 'i did it for clem'.. so your reasoning for saving ben is an 8yr old girl who likes everyone ? yet is a clear danger to the group ? oh it doesn't matter if clems ok..

    Thats my beef with you people the logic your using is bullshit.

    oh sure that applies to others if clem likes them they are safe but wait, she liked carley(not sure on doug), boom head shot, she liked duck and he got bitten, she liked katjaa boom head shot...she didn't want lee to kill anyone oops we met cannibals and lee of's the lot of em..

    even molly caved in to clem if you don't beat her down first..
  • edited November 2012
    but as mal has put it assuming the pro ben camp did this on the 'first' play through then it may hold water 'i did it for clem'.. so your reasoning for saving ben is an 8yr old girl who likes everyone ? yet is a clear danger to the group ? oh it doesn't matter if clems ok..

    I didn't bring Clem to Crawford so that reasoning doesn't really apply to me, and I'm sure it doesn't apply to many other people. And yeah, this discussion isn't really going anywhere, you're not gonna convince pro-Ben people you're right and we're not gonna convince you we're right XD

    Anyhow, I just think people are exaggerating on how much of a threat Ben could be. It's not like he's gonna keep making mistakes forever, any normal person would learn from those mistakes so the situation doesn't repeat itself, but that's just the way I think.
  • edited November 2012
    i haven't 'not taken clem' yet so i dunno how that affects things. (don't spoil it)

    the thing is ben is thinking he's doing good, he actually believes that right up to the last second before things go tits up.

    3rd times the charm..
  • edited November 2012
    The thing I don't understand is if people believe that Ben was suicidal, if you chose to save him Lee pulls Ben up Ben grabs onto Lee as well I think he could have done more to make Lee let go. I know some people don't but I like Ben's character he's just a kid and sure he makes alot of mistakes but I just think that after witnessing all his classmates die and I think that shook him up not an excuse for him to be 'stupid' but if your gonna chuck people out for being incompetent then your just like the people in Crawford leting people die because they aren't perfect or fit in
  • edited November 2012
    So the first time he can be of use to the group and you take that away from him?

    Why do you think I pulled him up? I did it because he is a part of this group. I gave him a chance to prove himself and be a help to this group. I saw that when he wanted to sacrifice himself that he wants to help the group, for better or worse. Ben even says if you bring him along to find Clementine that he wants to make things right with Clem and Kenny. Ben is more than a sacrificial chess piece. So I don't see how I'm "taking away a chance for him to be a use to the group". I've just given him more chances to do something right.
  • edited November 2012
    cthulu mean't that if you drop him he allows the group to escape by buying them time

    which they do ANYWAY.

    if you pull him up all you get is a stink eye of kenny and clem is thankfull for a few seconds before she asks about her parents.

    so regardless of how much stupid shit ben does you going to keep saving him and letting him live ?

    goes back to my previous point about sooner or later there's going to be no one left.
  • edited November 2012
    cthulu mean't that if you drop him he allows the group to escape by buying them time

    which they do ANYWAY.

    if you pull him up all you get is a stink eye of kenny and clem is thankfull for a few seconds before she asks about her parents.

    so regardless of how much stupid shit ben does you going to keep saving him and letting him live ?

    goes back to my previous point about sooner or later there's going to be no one left.

    You think I care about what Kenny and Clem thinks of my decisions? Sure they effect some of them but not when deciding Ben's fate. Is Ben stupid? Yes. But letting him go because you think that Ben is useless? We'd be no better than the people at Crawford.
  • edited November 2012
    sonny the thing about crawford was it only fell when anna wouldn't give up her baby and so fought her way out to protect it. which was bound to happen with a no pregancy rule. but it would of fell anyway.

    ben being useless is down to him being stupid and doing the wrong thing. and we are not crawford. so that as a debate topic is irrelavant as we do not live by those rules in the game.

    my reason ben should die is because no matter what he does, it is a combo of him being useless, being a danger to himself and others and constantly bitching about being left out and then when given something he fucks it up. lost count how many times ive said it now..
  • edited November 2012
    sonny the thing about crawford was it only fell when anna wouldn't give up her baby and so fought her way out to protect it. which was bound to happen with a no pregancy rule. but it would of fell anyway.

    ben being useless is down to him being stupid and doing the wrong thing. and we are not crawford. so that as a debate topic is irrelavant as we do not live by those rules in the game.

    my reason ben should die is because no matter what he does, it is a combo of him being useless, being a danger to himself and others and constantly bitching about being left out and then when given something he fucks it up. lost count how many times ive said it now..

    Irrelevant? Yeah, that sounds like a pretty good excuse. I refer you to my previous answer.
  • edited November 2012
    I wouldn't bother. Everyone else's logic is bull etc. which is a great use of logic Probably why it seems most people are ignoring him. So I've joined them.
  • edited November 2012
    Larry is a tough call, but let's be clear about Ben: You are not LETTING Ben die. You are MURDERING him. Your choice is to pull him up, or let him go. Letting him go is a CHOICE. If it's within your power to pull him up, then any other choice is killing him, not "letting" him die. This is why I had to save him, even though I was as angry at him as anyone. And now I'm glad that I did.
  • edited November 2012
    actually some peoples logic does makes sense to me,

    but saying campman is the owner of the car we looted is stupid ,as i already stated and by posting in the thread with a mild reference to what i said out of context isn't ignoring...

    saying ben will change his ways in the last ep is also stupid yet wishfull thinking..

    but these are my opinions/views/theories

    and i'm sticking to em as you are too

    so what we have here is good ol inpass.

    failed argument against me here, can't come out with anything to prove your point pick one word out and put a question mark next to it good job. fell in to my trap nicely...

    we are not part of crawford, we are not involved with them, why should their rules apply ? oh look we have clem 8 yrs old instantly nullifying the children rules, as for health issues who knows ? age well larry was the oldest with a dodgy heart so he would of been gone.

    making a comparison to them is fair enough in 'two' cases but this about ben not larry or clem and since by the rule of ben having no skills, no kind of talent, that imo is useless...
  • edited November 2012
    Sonny is right.
This discussion has been closed.