The corporation

the corporation

Posted by Peter Heslam Fri, 19/11/2004 - 10:14am :: Film | more by Peter Heslam

‘Imagine your company were a person. What kind of person would it be?’

It’s a popular question among management consultants and executive coaches on company away-days. However, according to legal definitions, the corporation already is a person – to the extent, at least, that it enjoys all the rights to life, liberty and property as an individual human being.

Unlike humans, however, who must answer to the people around us, the corporation is accountable only to its bottom line – according, that is, to the producers of the skilful and riveting (though lengthy) documentary film The Corporation.

Based on Joel Bakan’s book of the same title, the filmmakers investigate the attitudes and behaviour of corporations towards a fistful of issues: genetic engineering, environmental degradation, exploitative labour, the privatisation of the world’s ‘commons’ (including water and air), disregard for safety standards and marketing to children. Their data is interwoven with interviews from a colourful array of CEOs and economists such as Mark Moody-Stuart and Milton Friedman, and intellectuals and activists including Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein.

All the evidence, the producers contend, points to a clear diagnosis: the contemporary corporation is a ‘psychopath’, displaying no sense of guilt for the damage it is causing to the planet and its creatures.

Whatever one makes of this analysis, the film raises profound theological questions. If, for instance, the corporation is a person, in what ways does it reflect God’s image? Can it experience guilt and redemption? Does it, indeed, have a soul?

And if, as the film maintains, the chief cause of the corporation’s ailment is the notion of ‘limited liability’ (for both share-holders and directors), what does the Bible have to say about the divorce in the relationship between owning a company and being responsible for its actions?

Such questions are as much practical as they are theoretical, for many people spend their working life within companies. This is where lives are shaped and challenged. This is where people fall in and out of love. This is where personalities and vocations are developed and thwarted and worldviews formed and re-formed. If the church is to be effective in its pastoral and prophetic ministry, we need to understand today’s corporations and seek to direct their development in the interests of the common good.

So, let’s use our imagination. If your company – or the company whose products and services you use - were a person, what kind of person would you like it to become?

Peter Heslam

If your company – or the company whose products and services you use - were a person, what kind of person would you like it to become? PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENT BELOW BY CLICKING ON 'ADD NEW COMMENT'.

additional resources

The Corporation's official website, www.thecorporation.com.

Find out where The Corporation is now playing.

Read Philip French's review of The Corporation in the Observer.

For more information on the Trade Justice Movement go to www.christianaid.org.uk, www.tearfund.org or www.cafod.org.uk.
Christian Aid have a new booklet out called Trade Justice: A Christian Response to Global Poverty (published by Church House Publishing).
For a definition of 'limited liability', visit www.investorwords.com.

Find out how LICC's Capitalism Project helped to make a difference. And read about Peter Heslam's new enterprise at Cambridge University, The Transformative Business Project - at www.licc.org.uk/capitalism.

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis have released The Take, another documentary film, this time about workers in Argentina who have a revolutionary way of reclaiming the means of production...

Peter recommends reading:

The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea by John Mickelthwaite and Adrian Woodridge (Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 2003).

The Civil Corporation by Simon Zadek (Earthscan, 2001)

Fences and Windows by Naomi Klein (Flamingo, 2002)

Saving the Corporate Soul by David Batsone (Jossey Bass Wyle, 2003)

Globalization and the Good, edited by Peter Heslam (SPCK, 2004)

To read reviews of all the above books and more on the subject, visit www.licc.org.uk/culture/the-corporation-reviews.

corporations and souls

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 19/11/2004 - 11:28am.

I think theologically we need to be linking this issue with Principalities and Powers -see the Walter Wink stuff on this. I'm hoping that my PhD application on this very topic will mean I can start work on it soon ... there's a huge area of research still to be done, as far as I can tell.
-Andii Bowsher
nouslife.blogspot.com

Microsoft

Posted by Ross Kendall on Fri, 19/11/2004 - 5:35pm.

As a person who has been involved with the IT industry (Information Technology and computers) for a number of years I have a serious concern about some of the larger companies in this field, in particular the Microsoft Corporation.

While Microsoft make some great software (and some not-so-great software), and even have a very commendable mission statement, their actual business practice leaves a lot to be desired.

For people or organisations who just use Microsoft software and services, no problem will be noticed, but anyone who produces or uses an alternative product or service will soon become aware of their anti-competitive behaviour.

If someone is not happy with Nike's business practices, it's easy enough to choose another shoe manufacturer, but if someone is not happy with Microsoft for some reason, shopping elsewhere is not so easy. Microsoft's combination of market domination and unwillingness to comply with technology standards leave little room for competition. Most of their anti-competitive practices are pursued in the name of 'innovation'.

While the charge of being an anti-competitive monopoly does not sound as bad as the charge of using sweat-shop labour, I believe that the effects are just as significant.

Some reading for interested people:
From MSWord to MSWorld: How Microsoft is Building a Global Monopoly
Making Microsoft Safe for Capitalism by James Gleick
Why Boycott Microsoft? A Modest Manifesto

While I am happy for Microsoft to be a successful company, I would be thrilled to see them throw off anti-competitive practice and seek to comply with open standards.

Monopolies do effect peoples' lives, and also represent an unhealthy concentration of power.

Computers and technology are becoming more and more important every day in many areas of our lives: Education, Health, Business and Trade, Entertainment, even Church and mission. There are important ethical considerations to these connections. I do not understand why Christians do not engage in these issues more.

If you want to do something - try these links:
Just say no to Microsoft
Ubuntu Linux - Operating System
Mozilla Firefox - Web Browser
OpenOffice - Word Processor etc.

I do agree with some of the points

Posted by Mark Emanuelson on Sun, 21/11/2004 - 8:40am.

I do agree with some of the points raised in the critique of the movie, The Corporation. Large corporations today exert a high degree of influence and in many instances are more powerful than countries. Corporations do take on an identity of their own and have legal status equal to an individual.

On balance, corporations have improved our society greatly. They raise the standard of living by providing a means for capitalism, investment, and economic growth. The corporation's status as an individual provides that it's actions can be monitored and addressed through legal or legislative means. It creates jobs for most of the people in the world. And, it aligns nations and their people towards more peaceful pursuits of wealth creation and shared outcomes.

Corporations are composed of groups of people united by a common purpose. And if we are to address the moral issues raised, we must look to the people inside corporations to work on their own ethical framework. The collective view of the corporation is a conglomeration of the individual views of those a part of it. In large companies, or in any large group for that matter, people may compromise their own views in line with that of the large group. There are people inside who have morals, feelings, and desires.

In the end, people act in ways as part of a group that they may not act individually. This is where we can focus, in exposing this behaviour and pointing them towards a more ethical framework. I do believe that by and large, most people want their companies to do good things and be valuable corporate citizens in the world.

Overall, we must not forget the tremendous societal benefit that the corporate form of ownership has provided. I agree that corporations need to address some of the moral issues of society. Here, we can focus on the individuals within the company to educate and improve their ethical framework. In this analysis, we must not forget that corporations have been a very positive factor towards economic growth and peace in our world.

Re. The Corporation -

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 21/11/2004 - 9:49pm.

Re. The Corporation - Although the (modern) concept of the corporation as an 'individual' with all the legal rights and privileges appertaining thereto may be historically new, the concept itself is not. Many of the relationships that structure a corporation pre-date the rise of its modern manifestation. Both today's corporate entity and the Church manifest a collective concept rooted in the Latin term 'corpus'. I believe it could be argued that 'the corporation' is but a mercantile corruption of 'The Body of (Corpus) Christ(i)' and is the latter's greatest competitor for the hearts and allegiance of Christians on this planet at this time.

Not long ago, somewhat in response to the Enron scandal (I write from the U.S.), I conducted a seminar entitled Corporate Conduct and Christian Conscience. Invited to attend as a panelist was an executive from Amgen. In the course of our conversation he made a telling and challenging comment which I here paraphrase: The conduct of a christian within a secular corporation is driven by that person's awareness of who s/he belongs to.

And this points up the dilemma: The ethical demands placed upon such persons as they progress up the corporate ladder increase as the corporation demands ever greater identification with its values and practices. Can then a christian continue to belong to Christ in such an environment? What can and should the local parish do to help such persons sustain and strengthen that belonging? Or is the christian employed in a modern-day corporation condemned to a life of spiritual schizophrenia, paying obeisance both to the gods of the corporation and the God-in-Christ?

Of course, many other questions arose. But none were resolved and none, I believe, posed more clearly the difficulties facing both the individual christian-qua-corporate-employee and the greater Corpus Christi to which we all belong.

Institutional working

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 22/11/2004 - 12:28pm.

In corporate culture, certain thoughts become not just unsayable but virtually unthinkable; but I believe this to be true, to some extent, in all organisations.

I once worked for a large Christian organisation and remember clearly thinking 'what I'm doing and thinking is reproducing the ethos of the body (and I don't actually know what I think), and I'm not sure I wouldn't be doing the same if I was working for Stalin'.

In one sense the limits on our freedom are very depressing. We have to be outside the corporation to be free agents. But then we forfeit the right to be involved at all. But if this is how organisational structures have to work, then I presume there's something about it that God has designed. He can't want everyone to be prophetic outsiders not actually participating in shaping structures from within.

Therefore it becomes all the more important to pray for those in authority; and when they start to exceed their God-given authority, to pray for their removal. I've seen this happen once or twice; it's tragic, because God surely wants authority to work well, and it's also awesome and humbling.

the corporation

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 23/11/2004 - 8:56pm.

at the risk of being facetious - you could turn to the book of Daniel..

Applying the insights of Daniel

Posted by Peter Heslam on Wed, 01/12/2004 - 11:07am.

Not so much facetious as opaque - what do you mean? Which passages or themes in the Book of Daniel do find relevant? I'm very interested!
Perhaps you have an ally in Revd Dr Chris Wright, who notes in his comment below on the relevance of the major prophets.
Peter Heslam

The meek won't inherit the boardroom

Posted by Ross Kendall on Mon, 22/11/2004 - 1:54pm.

I saw this interesting article about a survey of CEOs on who they most respected.

Article: Most Respected Business Leaders (theregister.co.uk)

One part of the survey included a hypothetical choice including historical figures.

"Oddly Gates (2nd) outscored Jesus Christ (5th) as the person most requested on a firm's financial board behind top choice former GE chairman Jack Welch. We'll leave it to theologians and economists to define any deeper meaning (if any) in that one."

I find this information both positive and negative. Positive that some CEOs would like Jesus on the board, and negative that Bill Gates and Microsoft are so well respected (despite being convicted by the US Department of Justice for anti-competitive practice).

It seems to me that money and 'results' are what matters most in the corporate world, not how one goes about achieving those results. I am glad that some Christian business leaders are now seeking to address imbalances such as this.

What ho Jeeves

Posted by Toby Beresford on Tue, 23/11/2004 - 8:09pm.

I'd like my company to be like PG Wodehouse's Jeeves - an intelligent, proactive, servant. Neither blindly obedient nor overbearingly dominant. A mission to both teach and serve.

Jeeves

Posted by Brian Draper on Tue, 23/11/2004 - 9:43pm.

Now that's what I call a company!

More tea, anyone? And give that man a cigar for the first mention of PG Wodehouse on the site. I hope it won't be the last...

When we think about corporations

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 24/11/2004 - 1:42pm.

When we think about corporations and, indeed, when Peter asks the question, "what kind of person would you like your corporation to be?", we are ignoring one half of the whole coin. We are, in effect, focusing on what goes on INSIDE corporations and not what goes on BETWEEN them. In doing so, I believe we are missing some of the key drivers which today cause corporations to often act in socially and environmentally destructive ways.

So if we look instead at the BETWEEN side of the coin, we can firstly see that corporations operate in a globally competitive market. We can also see that countries with high taxes or high social and environmental standards and costs, are bound to be less attractive to corporations and to global investors. Any corporation failing to take advantage of lower costs offered by countries with weaker social and environmental standards reduces its potential earings and leaves itself open to becoming uncompetitive. In time, such action would result in a loss of profits and, ultimately, in the company becoming the target of an unwelcome takeover. Directors of such a company would also leave themselves open to legal action by shareholders for having failed to act in the company's best interests.

So the fact is that differences in regulatory and tax regimes as represented by the world's differring nations, creates an environment where the directors of corporations are effectively forced to do the wrong thing. They are forced by competition to jettisson relatively well-paid jobs in favour of sweat-shop labour. They are forced to pollute (if they can get away with it) rather than to pay the higher costs of proper protection. For as they rightly say, "if we don't do it, our competitors will!" In truth, corporations can only afford to behave as responsibly as the aggregate behaviour of their main competitors permits.

This destructively competitive situation thus makes the notion of corporate social and environmental responsibility and the idea of corporate behaviour reflecting the morals of its individual directors and employees extremely tenuous, in my opinion.

But what it REALLY points to is that nations and politicians across the globe need to cooperate with one another to simultaneously introduce appropriate legislation, taxes, environmental protection measures and so on, with an appropriate redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer nations, thus enabling poorer nations to develop while meeting higher environmental, social and governance standards. In that way, no nation, corporation or citizen would lose out to any other and society and the environment around the world would be the winners. In that way, no one need fear the dreaded and damning fate of becoming "uncompetitive".

Such an objective, ambitious though it may sound, would be achievable with the support of fewer voters around the world than one might at first think and is already being persued by the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO) www.simpol.org. Global justice campaigners and concerned corporate executives alike might care to take a look.

The corporation

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 26/11/2004 - 10:03am.

I saw the film last night. I found it shocking, disturbing and inspiring (Michael Moore made sense again! Milton Friedman made no sense!!). And brilliant actually, went with some friends from Church and we all came out really moved and challenged: what can we do? We must do something?

A film like this demands a response, I'm not sure what that is - the corporation exists now, like it or not and we have to engage with it. I think the absence of relationship is key - although most of us are in relationship with them so how do call that relationship to account?

The temptation is to retreat into isolationism: 'I want nothing to do with the corporation' so I purify myself and remain uncontaminated by not buying this, not shopping there - But whilst we may feel better about ourselves we're not changing anything.

The brief consideration the film gave to the growing trend towards 'Corporate Social Responsibility' was great. Is this not a way forward? - (ignoring the motivations of the Corporation that produces a CSR report for a minute) - If a organisation says it wants to do something positive, should we support them, encourage them, take them at their word and hold them accountable to what they say they are doing, or intend to do?

As an aside, a small company called Howies (Howies.co.uk) is really trying to do things differently - do check out their stuff - a real inspiration.

Avoiding a Polarised Perception

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 26/11/2004 - 11:11am.

The film presents deeply disturbing evidence about certain multi-nationals to make the case that the corporation is a psychopath. It warants this diagnosis, the film claims, because it exhibits the following mental disorders:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
2. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
3. Reckless disregard for the safety of others
4. Deceitful, repeated lying and conning others for gain
5. Incapacity to experience guilt
6. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours

The problem with this is the relationship between the universal and the particular. A composite picture of the corporation is built up from a selection of bad examples. But a precisely opposite list could have been built up from examples of good and socially constructive behaviour by multi-national companies. That would have been no less convincing and no more convincing either.

In a world where different groups are increasingly at loggerheads, a key Christian contribution could be to seek the truth wherever it may be found, to pay proper attention to the detail in giving an account of what is happening - even if that does not conform to the polarised perception, the snappy soundbite so much craved by the media. Political leaders, corporate spokespeople and many of their armchair critics are all selling us short at present.

Richard Higginson
Director of the Ridley Hall Foundation

the road to achieving change is not an easy or smooth one

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 26/11/2004 - 11:17am.

This is indeed a very interesting area of reflection. The notion of the legal entity as an artificial person (with limited liability) does give rise to serious issues and has caused many doubts and problems (some of them leading to
leading law cases) defining responsibilities. The idea of the corporation as some form of potential lunatic is not so far fetched to many people who have worked with and in them.

It is also worth remarking, however, that state bureaucarcies have an even greater capacity for lunacy than most corporations! To paraphrase churchill, 'its a bad system but i cannot think of a better one.' Actually that's not entirely fair.

There are ways to improve the private sector corporate concept but, as we have seen, the road to achieving this is not an easy or smooth one. A concerted and long drawn out effort is required and will never really achieve a perfect result, and nor should it be expected to do so, given the artificial, man made nature of the concept. In the final analysis the quality of a corporation is the result of the values and behaviour of the people who won and run it.

Anthony Travis

Ezekiel

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 28/11/2004 - 11:32am.

Thanks for this Thought. It resonates strongly with what I think is the most relevant biblical material on this topic - namely the prophetic oracles against the nations in the major prophets - especially Ezekiel on Tyre. It seems to me that Tyre clearly speaks of oppressive economic power, while Babylon tends to speak of oppressive political and military power (and both are combined in the imagery of Revelation). It further seems to me that the analysis of these chapters speaks more relevantly today to brands and corporations, than to nation states. And the irresponsibility, arrogance and apparent inviolability are also notable features. As is the fear of those who are oppressed by them, while they wield power, but the even greater fear of what will happen if they are overthrown! It's also interesting, in view of the way you remind us that corporations are legal persons, that the prophets tended to personify these 'mammoths', putting words and thoughts in their mouths, and certainly also holding them accountable and liable ultimately to divine judgement.

I've reflected a bit on this in my BST exposition of Ezekiel - ch. 7 (on Ezek. 25-32), - especially pp. 238-246, and 255-272, which might be of use, if you have in mind any further development of this line of thought.

Rev Dr Chris Wright

The film suggests that the corporation

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 29/11/2004 - 4:06pm.

The film suggests that the corporation seeks to destroy all forms of social organisation but its own.

In the case of organisations of employees, and other stake-holders, this follows from the corporation's desire to reduce the costs of the resources it uses. The corporation will also want to see a limited form of government - ensuring the legal and contractual framework needed for business but little else.

This is familiar stuff, but what was new was the suggestion that the corporation will favour less organisation among consumers as well - that it would prefer a situation in which it deals individually with people through its advertisements and sales teams. The point is presumably that individuals are easier to deal with - less able to spot lies, and much easier to brush off if things go wrong.

Yet the corporation has brought us enormous material benefits.

At the very least, the film offered a powerful incentive to work harder at new forms of corporate governance.

John M. Evans
Letsdolife Consultancy
john.evans@letsdolife.com

As a board member of an international telecommunications service

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 02/12/2004 - 12:42am.

As a board member of an international telecommunications services company, operating in 21 countries and trading on the public share markets in both Paris and New York, I would like to introduce some alternative perspective.

Firstly, in France by law a public corporation has to be responsive to the needs and expectations of its French employees, its various creditors (banks and financial sponsors), and its shareholders - in more or less equal proportions. In the US, of course, the shareholders are the primary parties for whom the board of directors is to act in a fiduciary capacity.

Sometimes, all this gets reduced to focus on profits. Sometimes the focus is on sales growth, regardless of profits. Sometimes it is on expansion by acquisition. More than anything else, the publicly-traded corporate attention is captured by moving its share price upwards, and which of the these strategies achieves that most directly.

This still leaves room for all the abusive uses of corporate power that are outlined in the film review, but the profit-only mantra is too simplistic.

Secondly, the "soul" of a corporation is primarily a reflection of the "souls" of the senior management team and the board of directors. They set the tone and corporate policies, the objectives and the tactical methodologies. These all may get moderated and adulterated as they pass down through the middle management ranks, but fundamentally what you see as an outside observer is a reflection of the style and sensibilities of the top executives.

The church hasn't done well in reaching and touching these people. I remember the CEO of a $10B+ US corporation saying in 1987 that although he was a serious layman in his church, he had NEVER heard any sermon or teaching on business ethics.

David Detert
daviddetert65@earthlink.net

David Detert

Comments on 'The Corporation' by Michael Schluter, December 2004

Posted by Admin on Tue, 01/03/2005 - 3:18pm.

1. I think there are some major problems with the modern corporation; these may be summarised as follows:

(a) It seems morally unjustifiable that when a company goes under, shareholders are able to leave debts unpaid, e.g. the case of the employees of Enron.
(b) Although shareholders do take some modicum of risk, it seems that they are largely ‘reaping where they have not sown’ as the risk is small (particularly given the limit on the downside risk) and there is virtually no involvement in decisions made by the company.
(c) Shareholders are at least nominally owners of the company and yet bear no responsibility for decisions made by management relating to safety, the environment, communities, etc.

2. There are particular problems in the relationship between the shareholder and the company. These problems are difficult to address for three main reasons:

(a) The relationship between the shareholder and the company is often indirect, via pension funds, unit trusts and other institutional mechanisms.
(b) Many shareholders have very small holdings in very large companies, so cannot hope to influence management in practice. There is therefore no incentive to spend time and get involved.
(c) Many shareholders cannot even be identified as money is routed through off-shore companies where shareholder identity is not transparent.

3. One attempt to address these problems has been ‘ethical finance’. However, it is not clear that this is the solution for the following reasons:

(a) The ethical funds have found it difficult to find positive criteria rather than negative ones by which to select companies.
(b) It doesn’t address the power of companies which often result in ‘bullying’ between large and small, e.g. the large supermarkets are able to ‘bully’ small suppliers so that the major profits accumulate with the retailers rather than their suppliers.
(c) It is still not possible in many cases to identify who the shareholder is because so much shareholding is not being done directly by the individual or family.

If anyone would like to read a fuller discussion of the issues raised by the plc, they might like to look at my Cambridge Paper on this issue, entitled: ‘Risk, reward and responsibility: limited liability and company reform’, which can be found at: http://www.jubilee-centre.org/cambridge_papers/index.php?cat=1&page=2

Michael Schluter

'The spirituality of the mark

Posted by lily on Mon, 26/05/2008 - 9:20pm.

'The spirituality of the market-place is different to the Holy Spirit'. This was a comment I read, written by a vicar in his parish newsletter. I temp in London companies and can't claim to be an expert
but like most people I find myself reflecting with interest on my experiences working in a 'corporation'. Anita Roddick said that she hated corporate rituals and all that they stood for. This statement has really helped me to reflect on my experiences with hope as I keep my nose to the grindstone and hope for a better life. Corporations affect family life. An ethnography of corporations would surely encounter a folk culture with practices which show what we actually believe because we practice what we believe.
I admire many people who work for companies - I think it takes courage and character to face tremendous challenges daily, to develop professionaly and live on the edge.
I learned alot and was really amazed at how some people pray in the workplace. It doesn't seem uncommon for some people to find meaning in christian beliefs even if they do not profess to be churchgoers Also to find meaning in the christian narrative when making sense of their experiences at work. Gerald Coates quoted Rowan Williams as saying that God speaks to everyone - the person at the bus stop, the shop assistant. That must include people in companies. The verse in Timothy says that the living God is 'the Saviour of all men and especially of those who believe'. During a particularly stressful time when I was working for a company I was really helped by a quote from a pastor. He said people become more who they are meant to be in the church because the Holy Spirit is among them helping their humanity to be more as it should be. This really helped me to have more realistic expectations of relationships in the workplace and ease some disappointment I was feeling. Christians claim that it is through the church that God will transform society and that the church is at the centre of world history. It is through the Holy Spirit, not by might or power.
A thread of belief throughout the bible is that it is wrong to make money by unjust means and Jesus challenged the pharisees, for having wrong motives for making money. He also challenged the Rich Man in Luke 16 19-31 for being hard-hearted in the way he used his wealth, drawing parallels on the biblical theme of self-giving being more important than self-interest.
Relationships with bosses who hold positions of power and relationships of power are another challenge for employees in a corporation.In the book of Daniel the king had been impressed by Daniels devotion and positive attitude. An outcome of this was that when government officials were pressuring the king to punish Daniel and kill him the king was desperate to help Daniel. The king had no option but to obey the laws and Daniel was 'sacked' to the lions den. The king however, fretted all night and hurried out at the break of day hoping to find Daniel well and rescued from his ordeal in the lions den. I think this shows that we should remember the humanity and frailty of people in positions of authority. Despite their power and influence they may look more unattractive than they actually are because of the position they find themselves in. They may think more highly of us and care more than we think. To persevere in devotion and have a attitude of sensitivity might be a way of winning the heart of someone in authority. He/she could be a person who God speaks to.

With love (and extra resources, group-work ideas and links...)
from www.licc.org.uk/culture.

the corporation

Comment viewing options

User login

Navigation

Site Help

Forum topics

Active forum topics:

New forum topics:

Who's online

Blogs

Syndicate