It seems like one of the only constants of human history is that we fear what we don't understand (and refuse to understand whatever we don't like,) and hate what we fear. If the green space magic takes that away, then whatever is left isn't really human any more, is it?
What sort of increased capability would not be seen as an improvement? I'm willing to entertain the possibility, but you're not putting anything on the table.
You seem to be assuming that synthesis works by creating a quantitative increment of previously existent abilities; but that is not necessarily the case for all technology. (And even if it was, there is no certainty that the increment was seen as desirable or useful by the recipient).
But if you want to see a supposed upgrade that fails to be seen as such by a significant part of the intended audience, just look at Windows 8.
If you remember some argued that the touch-centric hybrid UI was not meant to optimize the experience of the traditional user, (in their non-touch able PCs) but rather the developers own goals, their vision of the future and the role of their company in it. A case of conflicting goals between user and developer, that hints that the goals of the creator/implementer and the user are not necessarily the same.
But if you want an example of an increment of an available “ability” that is not necessarily seen as beneficial here is an hypothetical example:
Assume that car manufacturer X finds a way to increment the speed of their vehicles by 30%, with an increase in fuel spending of 5% at all levels of speed. Assume the change is performed for free. I’m sure a good number would be glad to do it. Personally, I wouldn’t bother, as I don’t need my car to go faster and I don’t desire an increase in fuel consumption. But if the change was mandatory, than I, and others like me, would be displeased with the supposed enhancement as it brings no perceived gain and imposes an extra cost.
Perhaps. But nothing like that would be available for some time. By which time Synthesis would be the new normal.
don't forget that some of the species live a long, long, time and even humans have an extended life. The new normal may not be so normal soon.
Besides it being true? The other thing we know about Synthesis is that it radically alters synthetics' minds.
Wait a minute; the only example we do have is EDI, and she sounds basically the same with the addition of feelings, (personally, I don’t remember her to radically change her point of view about anything)
Anyway: anti-Reaper device emits energy wave, Reapers become friendly.... seems pretty logical to me. Of course, one can argue that people would come up with any crazy theory they wanted in order to keep hating the Reapers; that our great triumph was actually a Reaper trap. That works. Reason is the servant of the passions, right? I imagine there would be a fair number of idiots. I just think they'd die out.
You think only an idiot would want to know exactly how synthesis works? Why it did cause the reapers to do their thing and start to be al friendly?
Would only an idiot worry about the reapers still keeping all their destructive ability? with only an unknown reason being responsible to keep them docile?
Would only an idiot worry about knowing what exactly synthesis does to themselves as well as the reapers?
Would only an idiot be concerned to not dismiss all possibilities, especially those that can be potentially more dangerous?
The obvious problem with this as an example is that the increased fuel consumption isn't an upgrade. Worse efficiency is just worse.Assume that car manufacturer X finds a way to increment the speed of their vehicles by 30%, with an increase in fuel spending of 5% at all levels of speed. Assume the change is performed for free. I’m sure a good number would be glad to do it. Personally, I wouldn’t bother, as I don’t need my car to go faster and I don’t desire an increase in fuel consumption. But if the change was mandatory, than I, and others like me, would be displeased with the supposed enhancement as it brings no perceived gain and imposes an extra cost.
I wasn't thinking of generations. Just of normal human adaptability. Nobody's going back to Windows 3.1.don't forget that some of the species live a long, long, time and even humans have an extended life. The new normal may not be so normal soon.
She feels she's very different.Wait a minute; the only example we do have is EDI, and she sounds basically the same with the addition of feelings, (personally, I don’t remember her to radically change her point of view about anything)
This is fear in search of a rationale. You'd know what Synthesis means for yourself since you're experiencing it. Sure, I expect some people would waste a lot of time being needlessly scared of the Reapers for a while.You think only an idiot would want to know exactly how synthesis works? Why it did cause the reapers to do their thing and start to be al friendly?
Would only an idiot worry about the reapers still keeping all their destructive ability? with only an unknown reason being responsible to keep them docile?
Would only an idiot worry about knowing what exactly synthesis does to themselves as well as the reapers?
Would only an idiot be concerned to not dismiss all possibilities, especially those that can be potentially more dangerous?
It seems like one of the only constants of human history is that we fear what we don't understand (and refuse to understand whatever we don't like,) and hate what we fear. If the green space magic takes that away, then whatever is left isn't really human any more, is it?
If that is all that defines humanity, then it wasn't worth preserving to begin with. Fortunately, neither of us actually believes that fear and ignorance encompass the totality of the human experience....right?
For instance, rejecting nuclear power does not make one a technophobe, nor embracing Windows 8 makes you a technophile.
For every technological innovation accepted by the public, others were not, because of a variety of reasons. One may have been deemed too dangerous, another too impractical, yet another pointless, and so on… in the case of a rather intrusive technology, resistance is natural and the benefits much be all the more clear.
Rejecting nuclear power and Windows 8 isn't about rejecting advancement but accelerating it. Those who criticize Windows 8 don't reject Windows; they are hoping for a better Windows 9. Is your argument that those who dislike Synthesis do so because they don't believe it does enough? That what they actually want is an improved Synthesis?
The benefits are clear with Synthesis. I'm really hoping someone can start pointing out the drawbacks as anything more than psychological trauma for the first generation.
How can they not know?
What is your evidence that the Reapers know about the Catalyst at all?
Why would they stop reaping otherwise? Besides, isn’t it implied that the catalyst is, to some degree, the collective intelligence of the reapers? (serious question, I seem to remember something of the sort in his speech but I’m not sure)
He does say that, though it's unclear what it means. Are you asking why the Reapers would stop reaping from the player's perspective or the galaxy's? From the galaxy's perspective, which is what I was arguing, the Crucible fires and the Reapers stop. The Crucible is the galaxy's weapon. The logical conclusion is that galactic alliance enforced its terms on the Reapers, not the other way around.
Do you think that being changed at a molecular level to solve someone else’s perceived problem (or to solve an unknown purpose in an unknown way for an unknown reason) would not be seen as an undesirable event into itself by many of the affected?
The problem, from the galaxy's perspective, is the Reaper war. No, Synthesis ending the Reaper war would not be an undesirable event from the view of the galaxy.
No, the argument is based in hatred of the reapers and resentment/distrust/potential conection with Synthesis. Regardless, an action against the later is arguably an action against the former goals, is it not?
You really have no idea what the goal of the Reapers is post-Synthesis. We know what the Catalyst wants, and that's about it. But besides that, it's entirely possible to embrace Synthesis while still wishing to destroy the Reapers. Therefore, the arguments are separate and shouldn't be conflated.
What makes you believe almost everyone would believe in the reprograming theory?
Alan handled this.
The obvious problem with this as an example is that the increased fuel consumption isn't an upgrade. Worse efficiency is just worse.
If there are downsides to Synthesis, we don't know of them. Since your argument is that the presence of such downsides would mean that Synthesis wouldn't work as presented, positing such downsides doesn't do anything useful. The simplest interpretation of the ending is that those downsides do not exist.
Yet, the ending doesn’t show us any upside either, at least for organics. By the same token, they don't exist either.
The simple interpretation of the ending is that everyone and their dog is peachy with synthesis, and suddenly the reapers and the rest of the galaxy are all friends now, working together and singing kumbaya by the fire during the night. I find that to be extremely unbelievable, but then again, I didn’t pick synthesis.
I wasn't thinking of generations. Just of normal human adaptability. Nobody's going back to Windows 3.1.
No, but on the other end, going from Windows 8 to Windows 7 or skipping it altogether isn't all that unheard of.
She feels she's very different.
shure, she feels things, that's diferent. But I'm having trouble to translate that into every Reaper suddenly stopig because, you know, they got feelings.
This is fear in search of a rationale. You'd know what Synthesis means for yourself since you're experiencing it. Sure, I expect some people would waste a lot of time being needlessly scared of the Reapers for a while.
Why do organisms feel fear in the first place? Fear usually it is not something silly and pointless, it has a purpose. A creature without fear often acts in ways we would describe as reckless at best, stupid at worse.
In the case of the reapers what do ME people know for sure? That they are incredibly dangerous, they keep all their destructive ability, and they stopped for an unknown reason. The most elementary prudence would advise people to learn the exact reason why they stop. What exactly the green glow did to the reapers and what exactly is it doing to humans & co.
Your argument that they would know what the green glow does because they experience it oversimplifies the problem; as it requires people to blindly accept the idea that all that it does and will ever do is what they already experienced and perceived. But if we take the ending at face value, people would have to assume that all that the green glow does to organics is making a rather corny fashion statement. 
Rejecting nuclear power and Windows 8 isn't about rejecting advancement but accelerating it. Those who criticize Windows 8 don't reject Windows; they are hoping for a better Windows 9. Is your argument that those who dislike Synthesis do so because they don't believe it does enough? That what they actually want is an improved Synthesis?
Please,you were arguing that not trusting a single technology is the same as distrusting all technological enovation and would transform you into a space Amish. All that I did is give a few examples that is not so. All that you did now is give a few reasons why the space Amish theory didn't has legs to walk.
The benefits are clear with Synthesis. I'm really hoping someone can start pointing out the drawbacks as anything more than psychological trauma for the first generation.
Good, because then you should have no difficulty at pointing out exactly what those benefits are and how it all works
What is your evidence that the Reapers know about the Catalyst at all?
And what make you think that they don't?
In control, did Shepalist not order the reapers away? Now sure, you can argue that suddenly all of them felt an irresistable urge to pull away and, later, to help those poor humanoids they were reaping just a few moments before; but I think it makes more sense to assume that, however infrequent, the catalyst does communicate with them or, perhaps, he is the colective inteligence and will of the reapers.
But let me ask you; why do you think the reapers stoped?
He does say that, though it's unclear what it means. Are you asking why the Reapers would stop reaping from the player's perspective or the galaxy's? From the galaxy's perspective, which is what I was arguing, the Crucible fires and the Reapers stop. The Crucible is the galaxy's weapon. The logical conclusion is that galactic alliance enforced its terms on the Reapers, not the other way around.
And that is well and good in the first moments. Later, most smart enough Jane and Joe would want to know exactly what happened and why: What happened to the reapers and what happened to them.
The problem, from the galaxy's perspective, is the Reaper war. No, Synthesis ending the Reaper war would not be an undesirable event from the view of the galaxy.
if the problem was the reaper war before, then understanding synthesis should be a priority later, to understand what is stopping the reapers from going back to their old ways. Plus I do have trouble assuming that people would not worry also about how synthesis would affect them, now that the reapers are not an immediate threat.
You really have no idea what the goal of the Reapers is post-Synthesis. We know what the Catalyst wants, and that's about it. But besides that, it's entirely possible to embrace Synthesis while still wishing to destroy the Reapers. Therefore, the arguments are separate and shouldn't be conflated.
But neither do everyone else in the ME universe. And I'm arguing that people would want to know, since they are still a potential threat. And the synthesis problem and the Reper problem do not conflict, they are related.
Because I suck at this new quoting system.
Seriously every time I try to edit quotes by deleting some lines the entire frakin quote box disappears and I have to start over. It's so annoying.
vallore, it occurs to me that your argument would be a bit stronger if you just straight-up made it about human irrationality meaning that people would freak out over Synthesis, rather than trying to spin it as being both emotional and rational at the same time.
both play a role, if not necessarily the same in every individual. We are both rational and emotional creatures, to expect that our decision process is limited to one to the exclusion of other would be irrealistic, imo.
Please,you were arguing that not trusting a single technology is the same as distrusting all technological enovation and would transform you into a space Amish. All that I did is give a few examples that is not so. All that you did now is give a few reasons why the space Amish theory didn't has legs to walk.
My Amish example was to show that rejecting technology is not the norm in a technologically advanced society. It's the most extreme example, but that doesn't make it wrong. Then you gave two examples of a less extreme rejection, but they didn't work on your own terms, because as I said, they weren't actually rejections of a specific form of technology. If we follow the logic of your examples, the reaction to Synthesis will be, "let's see how we can improve this since it has X drawbacks" not "I don't want this, take it away!" In your examples the rejection was not moral by nature but rather due to specific manifest downsides with the technology, not some identity crisis. Windows 8 has very few parallels with Synthesis.
Good, because then you should have no difficulty at pointing out exactly what those benefits are and how it all works.
I don't need to point out how it all works at length, the least of which because demanding specific, scientifically-detailed benefits when your side can't even describe any drawbacks in the vaguest terms isn't going to work for you. However, I'd be happy to describe generally Synthesis's benefits based on what we're given in the game.
1. Enhancements to organics: The Catalyst claims that organics fear synthetics because of the rate of their technological advancement, and that a new DNA will correct this by integrating technology into the very physical being of organics. The Catalyst also says that Shepard will be the blueprint for this change. We can reasonably assert that the synthetic enhancements present in Shepard will be given to all organics, at the very least. Likely, this tech integration will be very adaptable to change and upgrades, in order to fulfill the criteria for alleviating the organic tension of the conflict.
2. Enhancements to synthetics: Synthetics meanwhile, are unable to understand organic thought processes. Synthesis changes this. Surely you can see the parallel to our world of improvement in relations once someone takes the time to understand the culture, psyche, and reasoning process of a given population. Being able to predict, at least to a much larger extent, organic response to a given action will assist synthetics in managing diplomatic relations with them. At worst, we can expect a comparable level of tension to organic relations with other organics which, while not great, is still an improvement.
And what make you think that they don't?In control, did Shepalist not order the reapers away? Now sure, you can argue that suddenly all of them felt an irresistable urge to pull away and, later, to help those poor humanoids they were reaping just a few moments before; but I think it makes more sense to assume that, however infrequent, the catalyst does communicate with them or, perhaps, he is the colective inteligence and will of the reapers.
No, he didn't order them away. He controlled their minds to take them away. That is the role of the Catalyst in relation to the Reapers, as he tells you. The Reapers never mention the Catalyst or anything controlling them. On the contrary, Sovereign asserts that the Reapers are independent nations. There is no evidence that the Reapers know of the Catalyst.
And that is well and good in the first moments. Later, most smart enough Jane and Joe would want to know exactly what happened and why: What happened to the reapers and what happened to them.
How?
if the problem was the reaper war before, then understanding synthesis should be a priority later, to understand what is stopping the reapers from going back to their old ways. Plus I do have trouble assuming that people would not worry also about how synthesis would affect them, now that the reapers are not an immediate threat.
Sure they'll worry about Synthesis. It's a radical change, after all. That's different from rejecting it, and it certainly has nothing to do with "old hatred" as you claimed, an argument reserved for the possibility of future conflict with the Reapers, not the magic wave that saved the galaxy.
Why would two different AIs reach the same flawed conclusion? I can see them reaching the same conclusion if it was the right conclusion, but if they were going to make mistakes wouldn't they be far likelier to make different mistakes?
I also don't see why the Sheplyst would be any less capable of controlling the Reapers than the original version was. And we know that the original's control lasted for millions and millions of years.
The original controller organised the cyclic genocide runs through the galaxy every 50,000 years. I hardly call that proper control.
The original controller organised the cyclic genocide runs through the galaxy every 50,000 years. I hardly call that proper control.
Whatever the benefits of Synthesis are it's still utterly, grossly unethical to force it on every single living thing in the galaxy - even if you ignore the very real downsides of it (which centre around the only actual piece of useful information presented about it, "final evolution", which would be utterly disastrous).
The fact that it's so unethical (at least to some) is probably the only thing that I find really interesting about it. In and of itself, it's just nonsense that's supposed to elevate life in the galaxy to be the pinnacle of whatever, but that's not an idea that I take seriously at all, so with that, the fact that I think it's ridiculous to make this kind of change on the rest of the galaxy, and Shepard has to die for everyone's sins, I just kill the machines and call it a day. The only benefit I'm concerned with is stopping the reapers immediately, and nothing stops 'em faster like killing them dead. I think the ethics of Synthesis are the least of its problems.
Hmm. I suppose the endings conflicting with the lore might be a feature for me, rather than a bug. I like it when a narrative turns out not to be about what we thought it was about. Which would also apply to destroying the Reapers not being important or even valuable.
I do too, but not when it tiptoes along the line of things like indoctrination, failed control over synthetics, and the series' conflicting outlooks on the merger between man and machine. I find the subversion interesting, but it doesn't work for me without clearer execution (and without meta-gaming).
Was there this much debate about the ethics of killing the Rachni Queen too?
Was there this much debate about the ethics of killing the Rachni Queen too?
Not sure, but from what I've been able to gather, there was a pretty heated debate around the time of ME2 about choosing the Renegade path and/or leaning towards Cerberus support in ME2.
Not sure, but from what I've been able to gather, there was a pretty heated debate around the time of ME2 about choosing the Renegade path and/or leaning towards Cerberus support in ME2.
I find this whole ethics in synthesis debate f'ing pointless. We're not killing anything, we're adding stuff to things.
I've seen people here who mindlessly kill the Rachni Queen on just about every playthrough, but then whine about synthesis being unethical. You gotta be kidding me. Killing an entire species is fine, but changing others OH MY GODDDDD
My Amish example was to show that rejecting technology is not the norm in a technologically advanced society. It's the most extreme example, but that doesn't make it wrong. Then you gave two examples of a less extreme rejection, but they didn't work on your own terms, because as I said, they weren't actually rejections of a specific form of technology. If we follow the logic of your examples, the reaction to Synthesis will be, "let's see how we can improve this since it has X drawbacks" not "I don't want this, take it away!" In your examples the rejection was not moral by nature but rather due to specific manifest downsides with the technology, not some identity crisis. Windows 8 has very few parallels with Synthesis.
CronoDragon, as I see it, the Amish example implies that refusal of a specific technology is refusal of all further improvements. My examples are meant to prove you can refuse a specific form of technology, without refusing technology overall, or even other forms of that technology.
And, as I see it, in the example Windows is not comparable to synthesis, windows 8 is; a specific form of that technology, one that can have substitutes without the perceived specific costs of windows 8. You can still be all of windows, (enhancements), and skip windows 8, (synthesis), keeping with windows 7 (pre-synthesis way of installing enhancements) until they create windows 9, (potentially a follow-up of windows 7), and not wanting a windows 8.2.
Or in the nuclear power, you can be against nuclear power, “as is”, but would accept fission power.
Or it is conceivable that you could have some transhumanists refusing synthesis despite embracing enhancements. The same way that, back in the day air travel was starting, you could be all for it and, at the same time, would not be caught dead in a zeppelin. The solution found was not better zeppelins, it was planes.
I don't need to point out how it all works at length, the least of which because demanding specific, scientifically-detailed benefits when your side can't even describe any drawbacks in the vaguest terms isn't going to work for you. However, I'd be happy to describe generally Synthesis's benefits based on what we're given in the game.
2. Enhancements to synthetics: Synthetics meanwhile, are unable to understand organic thought processes. Synthesis changes this. Surely you can see the parallel to our world of improvement in relations once someone takes the time to understand the culture, psyche, and reasoning process of a given population. Being able to predict, at least to a much larger extent, organic response to a given action will assist synthetics in managing diplomatic relations with them. At worst, we can expect a comparable level of tension to organic relations with other organics which, while not great, is still an improvement.
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. I will star with the synthetic side, as it makes the analysis easier:
This is a well put argument, but you will notice that it also brings a drawback with it; part of their enhanced comprehension of organics can be traced to the fact that apparently they can now feel. If so, then, as we know, that brings to the table a degree of potential synthetic irrationality, or at least unpredictability that didn’t existed before.
Now you will notice that this drawback could only be brought to attention because we know that, at least in the case of EDI, this feature of synthesis exists. That is one of the problems of the organic side of the equation; a complete lack of any factual example of how it works, meaning that any objection can be discarded as lacking evidence, regardless of how realistic it may be or not.
Now you will notice that I’m not making a case here that this drawback invalidates using synthesis, only that something that can be perceived as a drawback exist, and therefore it is wise to consider that others may exist. Knowing as little as we know of synthesis is not wise to assume that lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
1. Enhancements to organics: The Catalyst claims that organics fear synthetics because of the rate of their technological advancement, and that a new DNA will correct this by integrating technology into the very physical being of organics. The Catalyst also says that Shepard will be the blueprint for this change. We can reasonably assert that the synthetic enhancements present in Shepard will be given to all organics, at the very least. Likely, this tech integration will be very adaptable to change and upgrades, in order to fulfill the criteria for alleviating the organic tension of the conflict.
This is, imo, far more problematic. In the lack a direct evidence of how it works, you have assumed a number of things, based on your personal interpretation of scant facts. That is fine into itself, but the results are necessarily debatable.
Fear of synthetics and Shepard’s implants as a remedy: I honestly don’t buy it. As far as I know there is no correlation between having a synthetic hearth and the inability to fear an AI. Further, Shepard may have a few implants but those are, if we take ME2 to be correct, a means to replace damage organs, not of enhancing her abilities. (They claimed they wanted to bring her as close as she was originally, and I think that there is even a bit that claims that her abilities were not enhanced, somewhere, I may be wrong). This makes the use of comparable implants redundant in healthy individuals at best, and not something they would be trilled about.
Substitute them with true enhancements and I still doubt they would solve the issue. Imo, the problem with fearing AIs is not related to the body; is the mind.
Now, how much of this would be relevant for the common Jane/Joe Galaxy; the idea of having superior performing body is nice, in theory, but not necessarily something one healthy individual would bother to pursue. Or accept synthesis for it. The idea of changing your brain however, is likely to be considerably far less appealing, as it has the drawback of potentially changing who you are in a fundamental way.
No, he didn't order them away. He controlled their minds to take them away. That is the role of the Catalyst in relation to the Reapers, as he tells you. The Reapers never mention the Catalyst or anything controlling them. On the contrary, Sovereign asserts that the Reapers are independent nations. There is no evidence that the Reapers know of the Catalyst.
So you argue that they all felt a sudden unexplainable urge to be elsewhere? I suppose it was the same as before when they felt a sudden unexplained urge to start reaping.
Seriously, they may not mention it, but they make allusions about a purpose for their reaping, and how they believe they are “our salvation through extinction” or some such. (that fits the Catalyst arguments). Now add that to the Catalyst claims about being the collective mind of the reapers of some such. I personally find it far more believable that they know about the catalyst, and that he gives them their marching orders. That they don’t speak of him fits their massive egos; apparently they don’t like to acknowledge they are minions, not nations… Or we can assume they don’t speak of him before because the writer hadn’t created the catalyst yet.
Quote from a earlier post of mine:
And that is well and good in the first moments. Later, most smart enough Jane and Joe would want to know exactly what happened and why: What happened to the reapers and what happened to them.
How?
Ask yourself; how many in the galaxy would ask such questions? Would some of them have resources and influence? Would they use them if they have? Could the information colected spread?
Sure they'll worry about Synthesis. It's a radical change, after all. That's different from rejecting it, and it certainly has nothing to do with "old hatred" as you claimed, an argument reserved for the possibility of future conflict with the Reapers, not the magic wave that saved the galaxy.
Here’s the thing; your argument requires that everyone in the galaxy believes nearly the same thing and adopts the same attitude towards synthesis, (save for exceptions like the weird lady in the corner named Cassandra, but no one listens to her anyway).
I, on the other end, assume that people being people, that a good number of them wouldn’t agree with the party line and would search for different answers, others would put different weights to the potential costs and benefits of synthesis that you put, other still would simply not forget what the Reapers did and for some reason may suspect of them being related to synthesis,(less unthinkable that you like to believe), others would not trust synthesis without knowing exactly how it works and if it is safe, others would find the very idea of synthesis revolting, and many other possible reasons.
The result?
A substantial group that, for various reasons, would not be very happy with synthesis and/or the Reapers.
Hmm. I suppose the endings conflicting with the lore might be a feature for me, rather than a bug. I like it when a narrative turns out not to be about what we thought it was about. Which would also apply to destroying the Reapers not being important or even valuable.
A story can do such a twist without conflicting with the lore.
Look at jade Empire, for example. None of the known facts change, but 2/3 of the way through the game, you get hit with revelations that completely shifts the context of what is known.
Mass Effect simply pulls the rug out from under you in the last ten minutes.
Whatever the benefits of Synthesis are it's still utterly, grossly unethical to force it on every single living thing in the galaxy - even if you ignore the very real downsides of it (which centre around the only actual piece of useful information presented about it, "final evolution", which would be utterly disastrous).
Pretty much.
I'd hardly call forcing all of Thedas to submit to the Qun a great way of ending conflict between humans and Qunari.
I don't care about that substantial group. Back in the days, substantial groups were against the abolishment of slavery, against equal rights for women, against gay marriage (some backwards countries that think they are civilized still are), against free speech, freedom of religion and so forth. Now most people see these things as the norm.
The same will happen with Synthesis.
The original controller organised the cyclic genocide runs through the galaxy every 50,000 years. I hardly call that proper control.
It is proper control. It did it with incredible efficiency and skill, and didn't falter in doing so by its own doing. Disagreeing with the motivation and method does not mean that it lacks proper control.
Retour en haut
