I know i will f(l)agged for this. But have some kind on me, it's just my opinion at the end. I know, through my work, some homo lads. The are not well, most of then needs some kind of help. But criminalizing this was the worst idea we ever have: some of my greatest idols were gay or least post as them: Wilde, Melville, Petronius, Capote... Some of them suffers the criminalization, some of them lived in a period when being gay was not a crimen or was not different at all. Edit: Freddie, I miss you as hell, man.
I'm, time to time, sending some money to the foundation. The work are great and help people a lot. But I know there are biased pages... But I'm not sure we are in the same page here: can you post some of the pages you found violates neutrality? Edit: Also the best way to fix wikipedia always will be reading more books, specially from the XX century. Maybe I'm a XX's century biased person.
This could be true in a way. I work at at an advertisement firm and know what everybody knows: videos and photos are waaaay more bigger than text, even if are Word files, so it consumes a way more traffic. 80% get's easily short. Edit: I'm assuming that people in the black won't traffic only text between them, my bad.
Last time I use Google services I can't delete my credit card too. So I cancelled that. Now all my accounts are somethingfunny.anumber@ just for comment music in YT.YT i good, I wonder how they will trash it.
But... but... the article claims false moral dilemmas... ¿Why framing a innocent is better than a riot? ¿Why kill a healthy man is better to let die 5 ill of them? ¿Why charity ---oh my god--- why charity is better than the usual inherintance rule? Stop reading here.
