Utopia Talk / Politics / 2019 crime stats released.

Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 29 20:45:49 Africans make up 13% of the population and 56% of the murders where race is known. As if that fucking massive overrepresentation isnt bad enough... There is some suspicion that because africans are more likely to murder random people for no reason, because there is a left wing stigma against investigating africans, and because less effort is put into solving crimes in african communities... that africans are probably responsible for 60 to 70% of murders.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 00:10:46 Rain is wet.Fire is hot. See we can all state the obvious.
Paramount Member	Wed Sep 30 01:05:47 Are africans also overrepresented as victims? If you want to solve/prevent murders I think you have to start with solving the drug problem in the US.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 01:33:58 Paramount, They are also over represented in victims. But they are also much more likley to murder outside their race than other races.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 03:45:19 Wouldn't that be expected, given that there are more white people? If they were randomly killing people, they shouldn't be overrepresented as victims. They clearly have a preferenace for other black people.
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 04:02:39 Well, Most murders are within their own race, and by a very large margin. Blacks im the US though have the widest margin on interracial murders, not just nominally. Ive posted FBI stats in the past, hold on. http://ucr...nded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 04:39:08 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24I2A9 This is a fact check of something I guess on FB. The original post wqs way off saying blacks murdered whites like 80 % of the time and such, which is false. However it is twice as likely for a black to murder a white than the reverse. 8% vs 15.5% in cases where race is known. So for that twice comment, I did round up half of a %.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 04:44:03 I don't know what you mean by that, according to the tables, when the victim was white in about 15.2% of the cases there was a black offender. Black people are about 12.7 % of the population. That is roughly 20% more whites killed than what you would expect from a random selection murder generator. In relation to what is this a "large margin"?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 04:52:05 "However it is twice as likely for a black to murder a white than the reverse. 8% vs 15.5% in cases where race is known." This doesn't actually mean what you think it means. Black people are 13% of the population, if all murderers where happening randomly, black murderers would kill 13% black people and 87% white people. And white murderers would kill 13% black people and 87% white people. There is an expected discrepency, if we are going blindly from the census figures, that black people are 7-8 times more likely to kill a white person than vice verse, simply because there are more white people than black. But according to you, they are only twice as likely to do this (which seems to be false according to the FBI tables). Seems to indicate that black people "prefer" to kill black people, probably because racial/ethnic segregation is a thing and they mostly come into contact with other black people.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 05:00:58 If we assume that all the "unknown" are black, that wouild bring it up to almost 17% of offenders are black when the victim is white. Now we get something above 70% close enough to "100% or twice as likely". So let's go with twice as likely. They are still killing less white people than one should expect based on population figures. Your society will not be equal and integrated until black people are killing many more white people and many fewer black people. I know this will not be recieved well, but the stats don't lie man.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 05:13:03 In summary, you should expect that as your society becomes more equal and black and white people more integrated, that black people stop killing other black people disproportionatly and kill more white people instead. As counter intuitive as may seem to our racist intuitions, this is actually progress.
Forwyn Member	Wed Sep 30 08:07:23 LOL, 13/52 is outdated 13/56
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Sep 30 08:41:11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XseDL1NvmrE
Seb Member	Wed Sep 30 09:46:03 Why would murders be more likely to be "within their own race" - isn't that surely an admission that America is essentially apartheid?
Seb Member	Wed Sep 30 09:47:51 "as your society becomes more equal" IF
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Sep 30 10:05:46 Seb Member Wed Sep 30 09:46:03 "Why would murders be more likely to be "within their own race" - isn't that surely an admission that America is essentially apartheid?" Do you believe this isn't the case in the UK?
Rugian Member	Wed Sep 30 10:11:52 Seb is correct - our society is NOT automatically going to become more equal...especially if the SJWs win in November and continue their quest to reduce white males to second-class citizens via bona fide government-mandated discriminatory policies.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Sep 30 11:30:07 "Why would murders be more likely to be "within their own race" - isn't that surely an admission that America is essentially apartheid?" Well ya. Why would the other races want to hang out with africans when their murder rates are so high?
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 11:36:23 Nim, In this sense population total has very little to do with it. One its the norm that crime, especially violent crimes are done within race.This norm is true for Hispanics, whites, blacks and Asians. Even within individual ethnicities really, whether it be Russians, Italians, Cubans, Koreans, Armenians, Jews etc. Blacks in the US are much more willing to commit interracial crimes than any other race. Now we can debate what is a large %or not. Even if it is 20% higher than other races, that to me seems a large margin. Generally the thought it is that criminals have a comfort zone. If one state say Iowa had 20% of rapes committed by females, that would be a large difference. Yes they prefer to kill their own, all races do. This afaik is common place throughout the world, not just the US.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 11:51:58 Habebe ” Blacks in the US are much more willing to commit interracial crimes than any other race.” What does this mean to you? Most murders of this kind the victim knows the perp. Of course all of this made even worse by your country’s archaic way if categorizing groups according to arbitrary psuedo scientific categories. Are you saying Armenians are a race? Hispanic isn’t a race, it’s an ethnic group (according to your census). What is a Nigerian? Is that a race or are they just black? Let’s stick with black and white because they are to some degree discrete while armenian and Russian (white as they come) are not.
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 11:52:33 Nim, I would also challenge the notion that if killings were done at random that your numbera wpuld bare out by using using population %. It would be what race you co.e across more likely in a given day. If you Chinese but live in an area predominantly Jewish I would think that if you committed a crime it would probably be against a Jewish person. I would be interested to see the information on adoptees crime numbers where it was an interracial adoption. Murder is also a crime of passion and even within families which would also drive up the interracial factor. I wonder what the numbers would be if we seperated in family crimes and intra relationship ( boyfriend/wife) crimes.
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 11:56:38 Nim, Race in America is often a.sub culture more than a genetic identity. I would consider Hispanic a race and say Puerto Rican or Cuban, Dominican etc as ethnicities. My point was just to say crimea usually occur within a comfort zone.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 12:00:22 No you are not saying Armenians are a race, I misread. It does have to do with total population figures and degree of intermingling. ”Yes they prefer to kill their own” In this case ”their own” means people they associate with, have relationships with, work with etc. So, the more mixed, the more would these figures reflect population ratios.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 12:05:56 "Nim, I would also challenge the notion that if killings were done at random that your numbera wpuld bare out by using using population %." You can challenge it all you want, but you're incorrect. If the killings were truly random across the population, then the numbers would correlate very strongly to the population percentages (and would approach those numbers are the sample size got larger and larger). The fact that they don't is caused by the very reasons you go on to list (among others). What Nim posted is correct, you just didn't understand it.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:06:27 As for Nigerian, again Id refer back to my sub culture comment. Black ethnicities are unique in the US. Generally in my experience non immigrant blacks consider them " Africans" and NOT black. But I would also point out that Id bet money that most Niferiam American murders would be within the Nigerian American community or atleast within the African immigrant community. When I lived in N. Philly you would notice the stark differences in cultures. Neither associated with the other. When I stayed in Spanish Harlem ( Taino Towers) It was interesting to stay the least. The Puerto ricans and Mexicans hated each other, but not as much as " Marinos" they all looked down on them which is like a slang term similar to " nigger" Domincans were slightly higher up on that scale but not much.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:09:44 Woo, By that notion Philladelphians should kill way more Californians than Pennsylvanians. That's not the case.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 12:15:03 ...seriously, wtf. This is basic statistics. It's the definition of truly random sampling and statistical population. If you use truly random sampling across a population, the sample percentages are going to approach the population percentages given a large enough sample size (or enough sampling runs combined together). What you're describing is the SIGNAL. It deviates from the truly random sample (in this truly random killings). In this case, it's the methodology that's different - the sample (killings) are not truly random. They are influenced by a large number of factors. This is like 7th grade shit, c'mon.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:20:42 The point is that its absurd to think that total population across the US has more to do with who victimized who than the people who they frequently come across. CA has 4-5x the population of PA. But a Philadelphian does not murder Californians at 4-5x the rate. Its an absurd notion.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:21:49 At which point why stop at the US population and not the world population?
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 12:24:00 This is like that scene from Idiocracy where Not Sure is attempting to convince the group to use water on plants instead of Brawndo. Eventually he just gave up and told the group he could talk to plants and plants wanted water. That may work better here than trying to explain this further...
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:27:31 Its ok woo, we dont hold it against you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 12:30:57 "By that notion Philladelphians should kill way more Californians than Pennsylvanians." But these are categories bound by specific geographic locations, this is a bad comparison. Californians by virtue of geographic location are thousands of km away from Pennsylvanians. Yet in some it is evidence for what we are saying here. If Californians and Pennsylvanians would be close enough i.e living next door and they were intermingling, then you would expect them to come into conflict and kill each other in proportions equal to the population.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:40:37 Nimatzo, Yes. Now you point out that they are thousands of miles away, but those population stats include people who are all thousands of miles away. My point is like what you pointed out about intermingling. So a more accurate look at the numbers would tale into account intermingling like NY/NJ/PA these all intermingled frequently the " tri state area" One should also take into account what people one comes across on yhe regular. When I lived in N. Philly for example I came across blacks abput twice as often as whites and Hispanics much less so. So if I were to randomly commit a crime it would moat likley be against a black person BUT it's not a random sort of crime in most cases. I actually hung out with whites about equally as blacks, even though I passed more blacks in the street.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 12:41:13 Look at this like this, Californians are not killing New Yorkers, because they do not come into contact that often. Black people are not killing _that_ many white people, for the same reason, they are not coming into contact with THAT many white people. If and as this changes you would expect this ratio to change as well. It may defy your intuitions, populations statistics often can, but black people killing more white people, does not necessarily equal something terrible. It could be terrible, but not by virtue of the stats themselves.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 30 12:44:53 habebe This is how you know Trump's instincts are right. How many Americans have been killed by North Korean nationals in 2019? Very few. They are obviously your best friends. Statistics proves it!
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:47:11 2010, the racial makeup of Frankford is 31.8% African American, 30.8% White, 29% Hispanic, and 8.4% other. Sonthe is the actual make up of the area I lived in. Tbh I was shocked that the amount of Hispanics was so high, I only really seen them in numbers at corner stores (" papi" stores) or in a " papi Neighborhood" I only lived there a few months, and rarely went more than a few blocks from my home unless I was going put of the city or shopping.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 12:48:47 It's like he's actually fucking retarded. He doesn't even understand why Nim brought up the general population percentages. What level of reading comprehension do we think he has? 5th grade, maybe?
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:51:27 Woo is just salty because he was outed as a pedophile so he resorts backs to name calling.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 12:54:38 Nim, It may not be a nefarious cause. Honestly we lack more information. Hispanics in my experience are a tighter knit group, which likley plays into them intermingling less and thus committing fewer interracial crimes. Which is to say different than Sam's initial point which is that most murders are by and against blacks.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 12:56:13 Do you even realize that neither Nim or myself claimed killings should be following the general population percentages? Do you at least get that? Because your posts make me think you believe one or both of us claimed that...
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 12:56:14 "but those population stats include people who are all thousands of miles away." I don't know what you mean. Black and white people live in the same city and neighborhoods, in a way that Californians and Pennsylvanians do not. "So a more accurate look at the numbers would tale into account intermingling like NY/NJ/PA these all intermingled frequently the " tri state area"" No. You are using geographic location, something that changes when you move and compare it with racial category, something that never changes. This is a textbook apples and oranges thing. These are two different ends of time and space. "So if I were to randomly commit a crime it would moat likley be against a black person BUT it's not a random sort of crime in most cases." Yes, the people you come into contact with and associate with is an important factor. Nobody said murder happens randomly, in fact the opposite. The example of the random murder generator was, IF and AS society breaks down segregation, then people regardless of skin color (because they are associating and creating relationships not based on racial category) will be killing people of any skin color. In the aggregate it would look random if you are looking at racial category, but it wouldn't be random. Because people would be killing people close to them, it just happens that in this future society skin color isn't an important factor for who you associate with.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 13:09:45 Nom, "I don't know what you mean. Black and white people live in the same city and neighborhoods, in a way that Californians and Pennsylvanians do not." My point is that they do so, but not at the rates of the overall general population. Case in point Frankford. Also if you look at fly over states they are overwhelmingly white. "No. You are using geographic location, something that changes when you move and compare it with racial category, something that never changes. This is a textbook apples and oranges thing. These are two different ends of time and space." But yourbsaying that they are 13% of the population, my point is that in most places that is not the case on a community level. My point being that they would not come into contact with each other at that rate.Which would be a better figure to go by. "Yes, the people you come into contact with and associate with is an important factor. Nobody said murder happens randomly, in fact the opposite. " Yes, e 100% agree. To be honest est Im not really seeing where we disagree.Perhaps I poorly states my position.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 13:10:55 "I don't know what you mean." He thinks that we have claimed killings should be following the general population percentages because that was used as an example of what truly random sampling would look like. He just doesn't get it, that's all. I've noticed using those types of examples confuses him. He gets hyper-focused on the example and takes it to be the actual claim.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 13:11:51 See? His post pretty much exemplifies my explanation of where his confusion is coming from.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 13:18:16 Woo, Im not sure you get what I'm saying. My point is that this so called random study is still within a geographic area in this case the US.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 13:19:38 Also that ( a point we all seem to agree on) overall % is a poor metric for this ryoe of crime.I, nor is anyone else disputing that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 13:24:25 Ok. Well the point was that black people killing more white people than black people, isn’t the sign of something sinister. It is an expected turn out to some degree, and adding that EVEN IF murders were completely random that would mean black people would be killing almost 9 white people for every black, IT ISN’T random though since they are only killing 2 white for every black. It was to illustrate how far away these ratios are from signaling some sort of problem where black people want to kill white people. i.e not even 7 white per killed black would necessarily be a problem. It could actually be one of the best integrated societies.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 13:24:29 No, I completely understand what you're saying. It's you that did not understand what Nim was saying. And that is what my initial post about. Nim's example was truly random sampling within the entire US. This means no geographical or association bias whatsoever. Is this realistic? No. But Nim was never claiming it was. A better solution is introducing geographic bias to the sampling. Or another way to look at it is limited the population to a more localized area and doing truly random sampling only within that area. Another variable to add would be association bias. However, you'll find association is at least somewhat collinear with geographic location. And so on and so on. All of these factors are separate variables that operate on varying levels of independence. Some will be strongly correlated, others not much at all. Nim is also saying that in a society with a truly random geographic distribution of races, the geographic bias factor would approach zero and disappear.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 13:27:54 I should say geographic bias as it applies to racial distribution.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 13:34:34 Yes. I mean we can argue which utopia is less realistic, one where there is no racial segregation or one where there is no violence. I think we will get over race sooner than we will get over killing each other. Again habebe, the point of the truly random was to illustrate the murder figures, apparent from the tha fact that there is a violence problem (.) in the black community, are not the sign of racial tensions and animosity towards white people, or as you put it that black people are more "comfortable" killing people outside the race. As if there is a hierarchy of racial violence, how dare those negroes be comfortable killing white people? :P
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 13:36:33 Woo, "Nim's example was truly random sampling within the entire US. This means no geographical or association bias whatsoever." But the US is a geographic area in and of itself. " A better solution is introducing geographic bias to the sampling. Or another way to look at it is limited the population to a more localized area and doing truly random sampling only within that area." Absolutely, I rarely say this but woo, you are right, 100%. I would add only that we may want to factor out certain subtypes of the crimes such as intra familial and within a sexual relationship which are likley crimes of passion which you also touched upon. Nim, I agree that this info does not prove nor am I arguing that blacks target whites. Or even any other race. We would need to delve into more information to determime that ome way or the other , which I dont care.to do.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Sep 30 13:40:11 "But the US is a geographic area in and of itself." Bias can be relative to the population. A random sampling across the US population contains no geographic bias within that population. It does contain a geographic bias relative to the world's population. That is all assumed in the basic statistical definitions of the terms. Don't hurt yourself thinking about it too much.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 13:56:13 Nim, Well, The only thing Id point out is that I said outside there race including Asians and Hispanics. I could be wrong about that as I dont recall the actual stats. But yes that still doeant mean it's for racial reasons.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 15:24:08 I would add that this is my suspicion based soley on mynown personal anecdotal experience. But I would venture a guess that the difference could.be attributed to financial reasons, meaning if blacks targeted whites at higher rates it not because of a racial reason but for financial gain. I could be completely wrong, just a guess.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 15:24:10 I would add that this is my suspicion based soley on mynown personal anecdotal experience. But I would venture a guess that the difference could.be attributed to financial reasons, meaning if blacks targeted whites at higher rates it not because of a racial reason but for financial gain. I could be completely wrong, just a guess.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 16:06:41 It is a good enough proxy, white people are in general more wealthy. A conjecture of mine, considering many murders are related to a criminal environment, maybe black criminals are tempered in a more violent criminal culture and environment. The distance to lethal violence is shorter, because that is how you survive. White criminals are in this sense less prone to lethal violence on average and not confederated in gangs (nearly as often) where certain norms rule.
Rugian Member	Wed Sep 30 16:19:59 Black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime because they make up a disproportionate amount of the poor. And there are a lot of factors that contribute to that state of poverty. Those factors do not include law enforcement officers who merely seek to maintain the public order. Blaming them for essentially doing their job is ridiculous. Police have more violent encounters with black suspects because black suspects commit more violent crime, not because they're vile racists who are just looking for any excuse to curb stomp a nigga.
Dakyron Member	Wed Sep 30 17:16:12 "What does this mean to you? Most murders of this kind the victim knows the perp. " This is the point habebe is incapable of expressing. When you look at solely those cases where the victims are random and there is no previous relationship between victim and offender, then the assumption is that blacks make up a high percentage. The FBI data does not break down the data in this way. And finding that kind of "controversial" data without being able to run a query against the FBI database is going to be impossible. Just like how they include "hispanic or latino whites" in the white category to bump up the numbers.
habebe Member	Wed Sep 30 17:19:12 dakyron, I repeatedly mentioned that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Sep 30 17:59:16 http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/vic_selection.asp This site allows you to dial this in, so it isn't that difficult to get the data nor controversial since it is on a .gov site. I picked: Column variable: Victim-Offender relationship race of victim: White Race of oldest offender: black number of offenders: 1 (to compare with the other numbers, but even if you deselect this the general picture or the trends do not change) 2018: Family 34 Acquaintance 269 Stranger 143 Unknown 234 The trends since the 1980: As a share of murders family and acquaintance have gone up significantly, while stranger has halved, and "unknown" has doubled. I am as convinced by crazy negro out for white people as I am about "there is an open hunting on black people". I will give you half of the "unknown" as strangers, the other half knew each other. i.e most of these kinds of murders the victim and perpetrator know each other. When you flip the tables, black victim white perp, very similar results.
Dakyron Member	Thu Oct 01 14:04:42 Nim - 2018 data: Victim is stranger, is not black. Offender is black. 286 murders out of 1,526 (18%). (1150 total murders by black offender) (1,526 total murders where the victim is a stranger) 2018 data: Victim is stranger, is not white. Offender is white. 138 murders out of 1,526 (9%). (607 total murders by white offender) (1,526 total murders where the victim is a stranger) Even then, 33% of murders by "white" is really white hispanic, and about 5% of murders by "black" is black hispanic. There is no ethnicity category in your data, but if used 33% and 5%, then numbers would be: 217/1526 = 17.8% (black) 91/1526 = 5.9% (white) 20/1526 = 1.3% (asian) 11/1526 = 0.7% (native american) 58/1526 = 3.8% (unknown) (The remaining cases are where you attack a stranger of your own race). That is a significant difference. Nimatzo again fails at math.
Dakyron Member	Thu Oct 01 14:06:18 116/1526 = 7.6% (approximation for hispanic)
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Thu Oct 01 15:46:54 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbZ2C9bH1k
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 02 05:32:29 Dakyron You have established the common knowledge that black people are 3 times more likely than white people to commit murder and even more compared to asians etc. In this case it also specifically applies to stranger murders. That is why I took the proportions within race and compared to them to each other and not as portion of all murders. We all know black men are overrepresented in violent crime, that isn't disputed. Your figures say nothing about how "comfortable" blacks are (as the claim was) to kill outside their race. I should posted the %, but that is what I was talking about when I was talking about "trends"a that if you flip the tables, you get similair results I did it again, now including all not just black and white, WITHIN the race, not as a portion of all murders. Sorted by victim, attacker relation 1 attacker, if you de-seclect, you get marginal increase and a difference of 2% white offender, victim not white: Stranger 22.% (2018) Black offender, victim not black: Stranger 21.4% (2018) That means that as far as white and black murderers go they are equally prone to attack a stranger outside their own "race". But because black people are in general overrepresented in murders, they will have a higher share of the total stranger murders. i.e there is no difference in "comfort" level, but a significant different in violence level. The interesting thing is that white perps are 3 times more likely than black people to kill within the family. I do apologize for not being clear, but as a former math teach you should have been able to understand how to tabulate this and get it correct.
habebe Member	Fri Oct 02 05:52:46 http://youtu.be/sF7qb6Y3GJE
jergul large member	Fri Oct 02 07:06:31 Nimi Blacks should murder non black strangers 87% of the time they kill strangers. Whites should be murdering non white strangers 14% of the time (I am charitably giving natives 1% of the population). Whites are way more prone to murder strangers outside of their race when they do murder strangers.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 02 07:17:40 Jergul Only if we assume that stranger murders are taking place randomly. Some portion of those murders are robberies and other crime related activity in the criminal underworld, where you find more black people than white people, so just as the reasoning went with the total number of murders, for murders in the criminal underworld, you would expect more black people to get killed, regardless of the race of the perp. A small portion are truly random sociopath, racist what have you.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 02 11:25:48 http://mobile.twitter.com/BNONews/status/1312048271733424130 Chalk up another random assault of a white man by a negro. Just so happens it is a famous actor so maybe the media will pay attention to it.
Dakyron Member	Fri Oct 02 11:45:21 "That means that as far as white and black murderers go they are equally prone to attack a stranger outside their own "race". " This factually untrue. 1150 murders where the offender is black, victim not black(2018 data). Total murders that year where victim is not black - 7,781. That is roughly 15%. So 15% of total non-black murders but 18% of murders where it is a stranger, compared to 12.5%(863 / 6904) of murders where the victim is not a stranger. Whites committed 5.5%(469 / 8426) of total non-stranger murders, compared to 5.9% of murders where the victim is a stranger. Its not hard to see.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: