If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?

EagleMan said:
Seriously no offesne to you either...honest. But just let me ask...What is the highest sum of money you were gambling for when you ever called a foul on yourself????...and...What percentage of your monthly income would that sum have amounted to at the time?????

I'm just sayin'. (-:

Eagleman
Click to expand...

EagleMan,

Is it the size of the purse or the bet that dictates when it's right & when it's wrong?

You are either an honest person or you're not. My honesty does not have a price tag on it & can not be bought for the winning of a game, regardless of the stakes.
 
ChrisBanks said:
Should I call a foul on my very self?

Artie has an interesting opinion on this, which I will paste here if I can find it again.
Click to expand...

Lots of time if you do not call the foul on yourself, it some how finds a way to nip you in the butt, maybe your conscious keep fighting your subconscious and make you miss at times.
 
EagleMan said:
I respectully disagree. The World Pool Association Standard Rules in fact DO state that there is no foul unless it is called by the referee. And the JUDGMENT of the referee is not subject to appeal...only his interpretation of a rule can be appealed.
Click to expand...

You're probably referring to the following section of the world-standardized rules:

1.10 Prompting Calls and Protesting Rulings
If a player feels that the referee has made an error in judgment, he may ask the referee to reconsider his call or lack of call, but the referee’s decision on judgment calls is final. However, if the player feels that the referee is not applying the rules correctly, he may ask for ruling by the designated appeals authority. The referee will suspend play while this appeal is in process. (See also part (d) of 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.) Fouls must be called promptly. (See 6. Fouls.)​

This certainly does not prohibit a player from informing the referee that he just committed a foul that the referee has not yet called. The referee would then evaluate this new information and decide whether to call the foul. If he calls the foul, fine, that's what the player knows should happen. If he refuses to call the foul and insists that play continues without the foul, at least the player has acted appropriately (and he might even make up for the uncalled foul later).

There is no rule I could find...although it is possible I missed it...requiring a player to call a foul on him/herself. ...
Click to expand...
I see no need for explicit language to that effect. The rules define what actions are fouls.

My conclusion is that...at least in refereed matches...there is NO PROVISION for self-called fouls and in fact, the referee would not permit such a foul.

Now an OPPONENT can ask for reconsideration of a non-called foul and could point out his reasons for believeing a foul was committed BUT NOT THE PLAYER whose turn it is at the table.
Click to expand...
The provision is in informing the referee of the foul; the referee can then call it. Wouldn't you agree, now, that your last sentence above is not true? The fouling player can certainly ask for reconsideration: "If a player feels that a referee has made an error in judgment..."

And as I stated in another post, there could be times when declaring a foul on him/herself...could be to the player's ADVANTAGE.
Click to expand...
If you'll list those situations, we could consider what should be done. In a refereed match, the referee could refuse to call the foul if it would inappropriately be to the fouling player's advantage.

FINALLY....games are to be governed by RULES and NOT by various people's often VERY different notions about "integrity", "morality", "nobility" etc. ...
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I don't recall seeing a set of rules that forces unethical behavior.
 
ENGLISH! said:
EagleMan,

Is it the size of the purse or the bet that dictates when it's right & when it's wrong?

You are either an honest person or you're not. My honesty does not have a price tag on it & can not be bought for the winning of a game, regardless of the stakes.
Click to expand...

Good for you Rick....I really mean that...honest.

I don't know how wealthy you might be but if you live "on a budget" as most folks do, I would just have to say that I would believe it when I saw it that anyone would call a foul on themsleves with a puppy shot on the 9 ball left in a Hill/Hill match for $50k.

Maybe...even if you lived paycheck-to-paycheck, you would walk away from $50k. If so....I WOULD RESPECT THAT.

But I would further suggest that only 1 person in 10,000...who NEEDED the money would do it.

How many blackjack players in Vegas have EVER told the dealer he/she miscounted and won the hand not lost it. Maybe TWO in the history of Vegas??

Is it OK to "cheat the big rich casino" if you get a chance?

But my BIGGEST point is that the RULES don't even PERMIT self-called fouls...that I can find...and they sure as hell are never called in any major sport that I know of except SOMETIMES (we have NO IDEA how many) in golf.

But NEVER in the 4 majors...Football...baseball...hockey...basketball...and besides MY POINT IS THAT NO SUCH CALLS WOULD BE PERMITTED BY THE RULES!!

Finally, let me ask you. Say, you call a genuine foul on yourself in spite of the fact that the foul was an ADVANTAGE to you. Is the opponent who refuses to accept your self-called foul call either:

A. Essentially accusing you of lying or
B. A cheater himself since...if he doesn't think that your're lying then he would be JUST as "duty bound" to accept the foul as you were to call it on yourself.

I guess....bottom line....SHOW ME THE RULE that obligates...or even PERMITS a pool player to self-call a foul and I might have a different view.

But in the meantime...I think that if there is no RULE then there cannot be any moral quandry about breaking one and that everyone has a RIGHT to their own standards of "morality" which INCLUDES the very credible position that it is up to the other player to monitor the match (absent a referee) and if he/she doesn't, then oh well.

As I've stated, AFAIK a player CANNOT call and enforce a self-called foul in a referreed match, so why should matters be different absent a ref????

(-:

EagleMan

PS: In Golf...the RULE is...you cannot sign an inaccurate score card. So...if you fouled and didn't assess a penalty on yourself, your scorecard WOULD be inaccurate BY RULE and if anyone found out...within the prescribed time...you would get penalized.

There is no such rule in pool of which I am aware.

(-:
 
EagleMan,

If I were to call a foul on myself, and my opponent refused it, I would ask if they were sure, & if they said yes, I would accept that & continue to shoot.

You make some good points regarding the major sports where there are always referees except when we were kids growing up & just playing ball with our friends. We sort of played on the honor system then.

You mentioned golf & what is very often an honor system. Maybe that is why golf gets so much more respect from the general public. Both started out as gentlemen's games. Why did they go in such different directions were the public is concerned.

As I've said elsewhere, in the old days of tennis when a lineman made a bad call against their opponent, some ladies & gentlmen would hit the next ball obviously out to even it up & make up for the bad call. Good sportsmanship.

I guess those were the good old days & perhaps long gone bye except for a few of us dinosaurs still hanging around here & there.

Best Regards,
 
Last edited:
This topic comes up every now and then and I never quite get it. You either decide to have strong character or you don't. The game has rules and whether or not your opponent is paying attention to them does not make them more or less valid. Play by the rules or sacrifice your character to get credit for a win that you didn't really win.
 
AtLarge said:
You're probably referring to the following section of the world-standardized rules:

1.10 Prompting Calls and Protesting Rulings
If a player feels that the referee has made an error in judgment, he may ask the referee to reconsider his call or lack of call, but the referee’s decision on judgment calls is final. However, if the player feels that the referee is not applying the rules correctly, he may ask for ruling by the designated appeals authority. The referee will suspend play while this appeal is in process. (See also part (d) of 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.) Fouls must be called promptly. (See 6. Fouls.)​

This certainly does not prohibit a player from informing the referee that he just committed a foul that the referee has not yet called. Well, it doesn't prohibit picking your teeth either. But your are misreading the rule. See below. The referee would then evaluate this new information and decide whether to call the foul. If he calls the foul, fine, that's what the player knows should happen. If he refuses to call the foul and insists that play continues without the foul, at least the player has acted appropriately (and he might even make up for the uncalled foul later).


I see no need for explicit language to that effect. The rules define what actions are fouls. And the rules define how they are called in ref matches. See below.

The provision is in informing the referee of the foul; the referee can then call it. Wouldn't you agree, now, that your last sentence above is not true? No, not at all. Again, you are misreading the rule. The rules states...The fouling player can certainly ask for reconsideration: "If a player feels that a referee has made an error in judgment..."

For an error in JUDGMENT to be made...first, there must be a JUDGMENT. In the instance of a non-call, there might be an error of PERCEPTION not judgment. So, in that sense, the rule is ambiguous which is not unique in the Standard Rules as has been discussed in threads before. But even reading into the rule what is not there...and it is the PERCEPTION of the ref (or lack thereof) that the self-foul caller wants to rectify...then I can't imagine a ref on the planet who would actually call a foul he did not see UNLESS...as is true in RARE cases...the very movement of the balls PROVES that a foul was commited.

If you'll list those situations, we could consider what should be done. In a refereed match, the referee could refuse to call the foul if it would inappropriately be to the fouling player's advantage.

I won't make a list but here's one. It is your inning. Your opponent has left the 9 ball frozen to the rail and the 8 ball frozen to the 9 ball perpendicular to the rail.

Assuming you have no way to bank either ball in, then you are almost certainly going to seperate the 8 and 9 with virtually any legal shot you take and and would have doubtful safe opportunities and you would therefore leave your opponent in a MUCH better position than you were in.

So, you just lay your cue on the table...using it as a measuring device and Oooops...golly that was a foul pardner...you've got ball in hand.

Agreed, but I don't recall seeing a set of rules that forces unethical behavior.
Click to expand...

Ever play Liar's Poker????? Or Texas Hold 'Em? See what I'm getting at? In those games, you are SUPPOSED to lie...mislead...use shark talk...all SORTS of stuff that would be generally considered to be unethical in LIFE...but not in certain GAMES.

Is it "unethical" for a baseball pitcher to INTENTIONALLY throw WAY inside hoping to scare the hell out of the batter? Ain't no foul to do that...unless the ump thinks you're head hunting and even THAT is rarely called because it's so hard to prove.

(-:

Games are played by the rules written for them. NOTHING is "unethical" in a GAME unless it is provided as such in the rules! Slugging your opponent in the jaw in a boxing match is NOT "unethical" but it is if you're wrestling it is and is even frowned upon in badminton. (-:

I think part of the debate is the act of IMPOSING what is commonly considered "ethics" in our lives in general with ethics in a GAME. As I suggested, NOTHING is "unethical" in a GAME unless it is stated to be so in the rules.

EagleMan
 
ChrisBanks said:
As to now, I've only raised the question. I haven't supplied my own interpretation yet. For all you know, I am on your side in this issue!
Click to expand...


You haven't, and I find that very peculiar.

7 pages of diatribe, half preaching integrity and honor, the other half murmuring "you snooze, you lose".

Finally, tell us what side of the fence you stand?





















































And let this thread die!
 
mantis99 said:
This topic comes up every now and then and I never quite get it. You either decide to have strong character or you don't. The game has rules and whether or not your opponent is paying attention to them does not make them more or less valid. Play by the rules or sacrifice your character to get credit for a win that you didn't really win.
Click to expand...

I understand your sentiment....I really do. But by your standards, do you believe those who play the games of football, basketball, hockey, soccer etc. are FUNDAMENTALLY unethical people...who should be shunned by society and disrespected by their friends and family and by themselves?

Do you think that there has been a self-called foul even ONCE in the history of those sports? Hell, in many soccer games, anyone who did so might not get out of the stadium ALIVE.

Again...I think that what is being missed by some in this thread is the merger of ethics in our general LIVES with ethics in GAMES where ALL unethical behavior must be provided for in the RULES.

I would like someone to point out to me where in the WPA rules that it is made either

A. Specifically incumbent upon a player to call a foul on himself or
B. Where NOT doing so would be considered unsportsmanlike and THEREFORE would be a foul.

Now...let me take YOUR side. In the WPA rules re: unsportsmanlike conduct at 6.16, the last sentence states that it is a unsportsmanlike if a player commits...."any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly.

Stretching that language to...and possibly beyond the breaking point, one could argue that not self-calling a foul could prevent the game from being played fairly. There is still that pesky ref thing...where the self-callers call might NOT be upheld by the ref.

But worse, the rule provides that there MAY OR MAY NOT be a penalty imposed EVEN IF "unsportsmanlike conduct" has been committed without doubt...and one of the "penalties" may be a mere warning. The rule reads...."the referee MAY impose a penalty on HIS judgment of the conduct."

Going from there to....I FOULED. YOU HAVE BALL IN HAND SIR...is a LONG, LONG leap.



(-:

EagleMan
 
sfmc-x1 said:
You haven't, and I find that very peculiar.

7 pages of diatribe, half preaching integrity and honor, the other half murmuring "you snooze, you lose".

Finally, tell us what side of the fence you stand?





















































And let this thread die!
Click to expand...


And what would you like better...another Mosconi Cup thread...Earl is a Nutcase....or one on aiming?????

(-:
 
EagleMan said:
... you are misreading the rule. The rules states...The fouling player can certainly ask for reconsideration: "If a player feels that a referee has made an error in judgment..."

For an error in JUDGMENT to be made...first, there must be a JUDGMENT. In the instance of a non-call, there might be an error of PERCEPTION not judgment. So, in that sense, the rule is ambiguous which is not unique in the Standard Rules as has been discussed in threads before. But even reading into the rule what is not there...and it is the PERCEPTION of the ref (or lack thereof) that the self-foul caller wants to rectify...then I can't imagine a ref on the planet who would actually call a foul he did not see UNLESS...as is true in RARE cases...the very movement of the balls PROVES that a foul was commited.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I'm misreading the rule. A ref does not call out "no foul" after every good shot. But when he says nothing, it's implied. He has rendered a judgment (that the shot was OK legally). The shooter is at liberty to point out that a foul occurred and ask him to reconsider. As the rule says: "If a player feels that the referee has made an error in judgment, he may ask the referee to reconsider his call or lack of call." We're talking about a "lack of call" situation.

you said:
me said:
If you'll list those situations, we could consider what should be done. In a refereed match, the referee could refuse to call the foul if it would inappropriately be to the fouling player's advantage.
Click to expand...

I won't make a list but here's one. It is your inning. Your opponent has left the 9 ball frozen to the rail and the 8 ball frozen to the 9 ball perpendicular to the rail.

Assuming you have no way to bank either ball in, then you are almost certainly going to seperate the 8 and 9 with virtually any legal shot you take and and would have doubtful safe opportunities and you would therefore leave your opponent in a MUCH better position than you were in.

So, you just lay your cue on the table...using it as a measuring device and Oooops...golly that was a foul pardner...you've got ball in hand.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't see how this example supports your case at all. A player can take an intentional foul any time he wants to. There's no need to resort to some more obscure rule related to measuring devices; just tap the CB in a different direction and give up BIH. This is done in all sorts of situations in 9-ball and 10-ball when the player doesn't want to disturb the balls, but would rather take a chance on the opponent making a mistake. If the opponent doesn't like having BIH, he can just take an intentional foul and pass it back to the first player. The three-foul rule will shortly come into consideration to affect who does what. [By the way, depending on where the 8- and 9-balls are located along the rail in your example, the 8 ball may be directly pocketable with BIH, so an intentional foul may not be a great tactic. It may also present a pretty good safety opportunity with BIH.]

you said:
Ever play Liar's Poker????? Or Texas Hold 'Em? See what I'm getting at? In those games, you are SUPPOSED to lie...mislead...use shark talk...all SORTS of stuff that would be generally considered to be unethical in LIFE...but not in certain GAMES.

Is it "unethical" for a baseball pitcher to INTENTIONALLY throw WAY inside hoping to scare the hell out of the batter? Ain't no foul to do that...unless the ump thinks you're head hunting and even THAT is rarely called because it's so hard to prove.

(-:

Games are played by the rules written for them. NOTHING is "unethical" in a GAME unless it is provided as such in the rules! Slugging your opponent in the jaw in a boxing match is NOT "unethical" but it is if you're wrestling it is and is even frowned upon in badminton. (-:

I think part of the debate is the act of IMPOSING what is commonly considered "ethics" in our lives in general with ethics in a GAME. As I suggested, NOTHING is "unethical" in a GAME unless it is stated to be so in the rules.

EagleMan
Click to expand...

Pool is not poker, nor is it baseball, football, boxing, etc. I'm talking about the ethics of pool, as governed by the rules of the game of pool.

I'll repeat myself. The rules specify those actions that are fouls. The rules do not say it is a foul only if the opponent or referee is paying attention and calls it. Sometimes a foul cannot be known to anyone but the player.

So if a player knowingly commits a foul and allows the game to continue as if he did not commit a foul, he is violating the rules of the game. That is dishonest/cheating.
 
AtLarge said:
So if a player knowingly commits a foul and allows the game to continue as if he did not commit a foul, he is violating the rules of the game. That is dishonest/cheating.
Click to expand...

That pretty much says it & sums it up.

Best Regards,
 
AtLarge said:
No, I don't think I'm misreading the rule. A ref does not call out "no foul" after every good shot. But when he says nothing, it's implied. He has rendered a judgment (that the shot was OK legally). OK...I buy that. The shooter is at liberty to point out that a foul occurred and ask him to reconsider. As the rule says: "If a player feels that the referee has made an error in judgment, he may ask the referee to reconsider his call or lack of call." We're talking about a "lack of call" situation.

I'm still with ya.

Sorry, but I don't see how this example supports your case at all. A player can take an intentional foul any time he wants to. There's no need to resort to some more obscure rule related to measuring devices; just tap the CB in a different direction and give up BIH. This is done in all sorts of situations in 9-ball and 10-ball when the player doesn't want to disturb the balls, but would rather take a chance on the opponent making a mistake. If the opponent doesn't like having BIH, he can just take an intentional foul and pass it back to the first player. The three-foul rule will shortly come into consideration to affect who does what. [By the way, depending on where the 8- and 9-balls are located along the rail in your example, the 8 ball may be directly pocketable with BIH, so an intentional foul may not be a great tactic. It may also present a pretty good safety opportunity with BIH.]

Still with ya.

Pool is not poker, nor is it baseball, football, boxing, etc. I'm talking about the ethics of pool, as governed by the rules of the game of pool.

Of course...but pool is exactly the same in the sense that they are all games/sports...whatever you want to call them and they are governed by RULES and that...quite clearly...the "ethics" reflected in those rules are ENTIRELY different from the ethical standards by which we live our lives in general.

So, were back to the rules of POOL and your above sentence seems to agree with my position that the "ethics" of pool can only be judged in the context of the RULES of pool and not by the rules of life in general.

I'll repeat myself. The rules specify those actions that are fouls. The rules do not say it is a foul only if the opponent or referee is paying attention and calls it. Sometimes a foul cannot be known to anyone but the player.

RIGHT....and that is my POINT!

The ISSUE is whether the shooter is somehow obligated to ASK the ref to reconsider an incorrect judgment...in the form of NOT calling a foul when one supposedly occurred....according to the "honest shooter."

This is where we part company. I see NOTHING in the rules that REQUIRES the player to self-report a foul. If the rulemakers WANTED that to be a rule...it would BE a rule.

So, I stand by my position that since there IS NO SUCH RULE then the player who does NOT wish to ask the ref for reconsideration is PERFECTLY abiding by his rights and is therefore, NOT being "unethical."

So if a player knowingly commits a foul and allows the game to continue as if he did not commit a foul, he is violating the rules of the game. That is dishonest/cheating.
Click to expand...

No...that point is FAR from clear or being definitive. I posted a portion of the unethical conduct rule that MIGHT...in a STRETCH of interpretation suggest that a player MIGHT be acting in an unsportsmanlike manner and therefore MIGHT have committed a violation regarding which a ref MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT elect to impose a penalty.

THAT is the rule...like it or not.

That is VASTLY different from the ref's OBLIGATION (he has no choice) to impose a SPECIFIC penalty when he observes a foul.

And the rule PERMITS...but does not REQUIRE a player to ASK for a reconsideration from the ref. AND the ref is under no OBLIGATION in the language of the rule to even perform any reconsideration. All the rule allows is for the player to ASK for one.

That is where your argument...with great respect...falls apart. In other words...if the unsportsman rule OBLIGATED a player to self-report a foul..."on his or her honor" then FINE that would be the rule and anyone who didn't self-report would be a lying, cheating dirt ball...BUT THAT IS NOT THE RULE! Can we agree on that?


You were CORRECT that a player can commit an intentional foul if he feels like it so I stand corrected on that point. THANKS!

And trust me...I DO see where you're coming from and I RESPECT it...a lot actually.

But I hope we can agree that there is no CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS RULE in pool, obligating a player to self-call a foul AND which REQUIRES the ref to impose a penalty...ANY penalty...even if the player does report the foul.

In the absence of any such clear and unambiguous rule, it is simply inappropriate to accuse a player of "cheating" or being "dishonest" because both those things require a RULE to have been violated.

EagleMan
 
The thing that puzzles me whenever this subject comes up is when I was first learning to shoot pool my teammates taught me that I had to pay attention to my opponents shooting and if they made an illegal shot I was to call a foul on them. If I missed a foul, after my game my teammates would let me know that I did so. They did not say your opponents a cheater, they would say "hey you could've won that game if you would have caught the foul."

I personally do not consider it my opponents obligation to tell me when they foul. I do expect them to answer honestly when I call the foul on them, which is not always the case and that is where I lose the respect for them and call them a cheater!

I also wonder why I have never been fortunate enough to shoot these people who so willing point out there mistakes and tell me they fouled before I call it (besides the very obvious ones).
 
I would call a foul if I did one! And let my opponent know about it. Self honor is what it is called!
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.
 
How about when your opponet doesnt watch the game intennionally,keeps their head turned away so they cant see whats happening and spectators will let them know its his shot..
 
EagleMan said:
No...that point is FAR from clear or being definitive. I posted a portion of the unethical conduct rule that MIGHT...in a STRETCH of interpretation suggest that a player MIGHT be acting in an unsportsmanlike manner and therefore MIGHT have committed a violation regarding which a ref MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT elect to impose a penalty.

THAT is the rule...like it or not.

That is VASTLY different from the ref's OBLIGATION (he has no choice) to impose a SPECIFIC penalty when he observes a foul.

And the rule PERMITS...but does not REQUIRE a player to ASK for a reconsideration from the ref. AND the ref is under no OBLIGATION in the language of the rule to even perform any reconsideration. All the rule allows is for the player to ASK for one.

That is where your argument...with great respect...falls apart. In other words...if the unsportsman rule OBLIGATED a player to self-report a foul..."on his or her honor" then FINE that would be the rule and anyone who didn't self-report would be a lying, cheating dirt ball...BUT THAT IS NOT THE RULE! Can we agree on that?


You were CORRECT that a player can commit an intentional foul if he feels like it so I stand corrected on that point. THANKS!

And trust me...I DO see where you're coming from and I RESPECT it...a lot actually.

But I hope we can agree that there is no CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS RULE in pool, obligating a player to self-call a foul AND which REQUIRES the ref to impose a penalty...ANY penalty...even if the player does report the foul.

In the absence of any such clear and unambiguous rule, it is simply inappropriate to accuse a player of "cheating" or being "dishonest" because both those things require a RULE to have been violated.

EagleMan
Click to expand...

There's a difference though in not calling a foul on yourself when only you know you fouled in a match without a referee.

You do realize that, right?
 
I'm an avid football fan and I see players break the rules constantly. Many of which are not caught by the refs but are easily observed in slowmotion replay......holding, pass interference, roughing the passer....the list goes on and on.

How many times have you seen a receiver trap a ball against the ground as he slid in for the catch and then pretend it was a fair catch?......about a million times!

I have never seen a football player call a foul on himself.....in fact, I often see players attempt to influence the opinions of refs by using the same arm signals the refs use when making a call.

For those of you who seem committed to making this an issue of integrity or honor.....How do you reconscile these issues regarding football?

Would you contend that football is a dishonorable sport that lacks integrity because players don't call fouls on themselves when they break the rules? Should we ban those teams from the league? If we did, there would be no football ever again.

I think that some people view one-on-one competition differently than team sports and this is why they tend to impose a different level of "honesty", but I think this is just an illusion.

If you're going to impose some personal interpretation of "integrity" to sports then it must be universal...it can not be good for some sports and not for others.

There is a reason that none of the rule books provide for a player to call a foul on themselves and there's also a reason that there is no penalty for failing to call a foul on yourself should your opponent catch you......It's not against the rules!

If it is not against the rules, then it is only the individuals self imposed illusions of "fair play" that cause them to associate "self called fouls" with integrity or honor.

If it's all about the illusion of integrity...ask yourself....Would you testify against yourself in court?

Even our justice system allows you the privledge to withould incriminating information that might condemn you.

If it's OK with our justice system, why is it dishonorable to some in pool?

If my opponent calls me a cheat for not calling a foul on myself, should I call him UnAmerican for not allowing me the same privledge the justice system affords every American against self incrimination.

Should I inform him that it's not against the rules and pool is simply a game of rules?

These questions are just rhetorical. I would never call my opponent names but I think some players on this forum are infusing too many personal interpretations of integrity that simply do not apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top