BvS Zach Snyder plans to speak with Frank Miller for MoS Sequel

The claim that "Batman not killing is BS" is BS in-and-of-itself. Out of all the superheroes in comics, the no-kill rule is more important to Batman than any other superhero and it forms who he is as a person more than any other superhero. This includes even Superman.

The vast majority of other superheroes don't kill simply because they're superheroes and killing is bad...because they're superheroes. It doesn't work that way for Batman. The reason for why he does not kill and does not use guns is engrained into his character. These two things have molded him and his mythos in a way that they haven't molded any other character and his mythos.

There are so many reasons for why this is the case that requires me to get into the entire essence and philosophy behind Batman and his mythos but I'll keep it simple: Notice how often the no-kill theme plays a roll in Batman stories. In most other superhero stories, it is there but is more concealed and only comes out once in a while throughout their stories. In Batman stories, the theme is constantly there and is in many ways the very core of many stories. Also notice how much controversy and disgust a lot of people have for Batman not killing the Joker. Some people have even said that they can't stand Batman altogether because of that. When you think about it, shouldn't they feel this way about most superheroes since it is a known fact that most superheroes don't kill? Yet barely anyone critiques Superman and Spider-Man for not killing Lex and the Green Goblin respectively, who are both far more dangerous than Joker in the first place. Batman gets so much more criticism in comparison to them for simply not killing a street-level psychopath. This is because, as I said (and I hate to say this since I really like both Spidey and Supes), there is no other superhero whose no-kill rule is as attached to the core of their being as it is to Batman.

When you make it ok for Batman to kill, you not only change him but you change his entire world. You completely alter the Batman/Joker dynamic. The Batman/Ra's dynamic. The Batman/Gordon dynamic. His friendship with Superman. The entire message behind vigilantism that comes with Batman. Robin's entire purpose for existing is gone. Everything about Batman as we know him and his world as we know it would completely change, and I don't think people realize this.

If you do not like the idea of Batman's no-kill rule being so attached to him, Batman is not a character that's meant for you in the same way how the Punisher is not a character aimed at people who don't like the idea of superheroes killing. I am not trying to offend anyone for saying this, but it is essentially true and there is nothing wrong with that. There is no comic book character that can be targeted and loved by everyone. That's not to say that you can't be bothered once in a while or have disturbing thoughts here and there about Batman's decision to spare the Joker (we all have those sometimes, even the hardcore fans) but if it constantly disturbs you to the point that it affects your overall enjoyment of Batman content and your overall opinion of Batman, then Batman is not a character designed to appeal to you personally.

As a side note, I find it very interesting how much criticism Batman gets for his methods from a political point of view. It seems that left-wings always critique him for having methods that are too extreme while right-wings critique him more for not having methods extreme enough.
 
Also, the claim that Batman is sparing the Joker for selfish reasons is not really true. In a way, he is keeping Gotham and the whole world more safe. That may sound ridiculous, but allow me to explain.

Psychologically speaking, Batman is a monster in human form. Bruce Wayne has intentionally transformed himself into such a larger-than-life creature. As Dennis O'Neil and Frank Miller once said, the interesting thing about Batman is that he is a monster but is on the good side. This same creature that is currently on our side walks on the edge of insanity every night. The only thing keeping him away from crossing that line - a line very thin when it comes to someone like Batman - is his no-kill rule. From the moment he breaks that rule, he has crossed that line. If he justifies one murder, he will be able to do it again.

That is where the issue with Batman killing arises. Batman is no cop. If a cop was to murder someone, he would still be bound by the laws of the legal system that would prevent him from crossing that line. And even if the cop did cross that line, it would barely have any effect because cop are just ordinary people with limits.

On the other hand, Batman does not have those luxuries. He answers to no one and is a larger-than-life creature not bound by human limits. Think about what it would mean if someone like Batman went around killing people. He is the world's greatest detective. Arguably the world's greatest tactician. Arguably the most obsessed and most motivated superhero in the DC universe to get the job done. Has prepared contingency plans to take down any member of the JLA if they were to go rogue. Is this really someone you would want to go around deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Imagine the danger that would come from that. There would be very little people could do to stop Batman in that situation.

On top of that, it is not Batman's job to kill the Joker in the first place. He set out to stop crimes from happening. Once he stopped the crime at hand, he lets the (honest) police take care of the rest. It is entirely up to the Gotham City Hall what happens from that point on and whether or not the Joker gets to live. And if the Joker got the death penalty tomorrow, Batman would have no problem with it (yes, I know there is a story where the Joker got the death penalty and Batman intervened but I found it to be very out of character).
 
Thanks Shikamaru, you explained it far far better than I ever could. Spot on :up:
 
Also, the claim that Batman is sparing the Joker for selfish reasons is not really true. In a way, he is keeping Gotham and the whole world more safe. That may sound ridiculous, but allow me to explain.

Psychologically speaking, Batman is a monster in human form. Bruce Wayne has intentionally transformed himself into such a larger-than-life creature. As Dennis O'Neil and Frank Miller once said, the interesting thing about Batman is that he is a monster but is on the good side. This same creature that is currently on our side walks on the edge of insanity every night. The only thing keeping him away from crossing that line - a line very thin when it comes to someone like Batman - is his no-kill rule. From the moment he breaks that rule, he has crossed that line. If he justifies one murder, he will be able to do it again.

That is where the issue with Batman killing arises. Batman is no cop. If a cop was to murder someone, he would still be bound by the laws of the legal system that would prevent him from crossing that line. And even if the cop did cross that line, it would barely have any effect because cop are just ordinary people with limits.

On the other hand, Batman does not have those luxuries. He answers to no one and is a larger-than-life creature not bound by human limits. Think about what it would mean if someone like Batman went around killing people. He is the world's greatest detective. Arguably the world's greatest tactician. Arguably the most obsessed and most motivated superhero in the DC universe to get the job done. Has prepared contingency plans to take down any member of the JLA if they were to go rogue. Is this really someone you would want to go around deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Imagine the danger that would come from that. There would be very little people could do to stop Batman in that situation.

On top of that, it is not Batman's job to kill the Joker in the first place. He set out to stop crimes from happening. Once he stopped the crime at hand, he lets the (honest) police take care of the rest. It is entirely up to the Gotham City Hall what happens from that point on and whether or not the Joker gets to live. And if the Joker got the death penalty tomorrow, Batman would have no problem with it (yes, I know there is a story where the Joker got the death penalty and Batman intervened but I found it to be very out of character).

That's a good explanation. Though I'm not fond of the slippery slope logic.

I think the best explanation for why Batman doesn't kill is to just have him not do it. That sounds silly, but I think it comes down to something simple. It's not in his nature, for whatever reason.
 
People do realize that Batman has killed people in almost every film that he's been in right?

1. Joker (Batman)

2. Penguin's Thugs (Batman Return)

3. Two-Face (Batman Forever)

4. Ra's Al Ghul (Batman Begins; letting him die is pretty much the same as killing him in a way)

5. Harvey Dent (The Dark Knight; given how much of a seasoned warrior Bruce was, there's no way that Bruce wouldn't know that by pushing Harvey off of the ledge that it'd result in his death)

6. Talia's Driver (The Dark Knight Rises; and honestly, before people start pulling up that bs about how urgent the situation was in that situation, or that it was a heat in the moment thing, yeah take your Bat worshiping eyes off of the dark knight and look closely at how it was practically the same for Superman in MOS)
 
People do realize that Batman has killed people in almost every film that he's been in right?

1. Joker (Batman)

2. Penguin's Thugs (Batman Return)

3. Two-Face (Batman Forever)

4. Ra's Al Ghul (Batman Begins; letting him die is pretty much the same as killing him in a way)

5. Harvey Dent (The Dark Knight; given how much of a seasoned warrior Bruce was, there's no way that Bruce wouldn't know that by pushing Harvey off of the ledge that it'd result in his death)

6. Talia's Driver (The Dark Knight Rises; and honestly, before people start pulling up that bs about how urgent the situation was in that situation, or that it was a heat in the moment thing, yeah take your Bat worshiping eyes off of the dark knight and look closely at how it was practically the same for Superman in MOS)

I would say that the Ra's thing is the most debatable of the reasons you mention. Not taking into account pre-Nolan films, because they are very explicit in the way Batman deals with criminals ("I'm going to kill you!" in Batman 89).

Because for the Two-Face scenario in The Dark Knight, Batman didn't kill Harvey Dent. It just wasn't in his hands, he was not able to save both Gordon's child and Harvey. He was battered, tired, and with a gunshot wound. It wasn't deliberate, it was the only thing he could do.

As for Talia's driver, it was almost in the same case. There was an urgency in the situation, his aim was never to kill anyone but to stop the bomb.

And as for The Man Of Steel case, I didn't have much problem with the ending. I was a little more worried about the levels of destruction in Metropolis and Superman's reactions. Just like Begins, we have a person in process, not a fully formed superhero.
 
People do realize that Batman has killed people in almost every film that he's been in right?

1. Joker (Batman)

2. Penguin's Thugs (Batman Return)

3. Two-Face (Batman Forever)

4. Ra's Al Ghul (Batman Begins; letting him die is pretty much the same as killing him in a way)

5. Harvey Dent (The Dark Knight; given how much of a seasoned warrior Bruce was, there's no way that Bruce wouldn't know that by pushing Harvey off of the ledge that it'd result in his death)

6. Talia's Driver (The Dark Knight Rises; and honestly, before people start pulling up that bs about how urgent the situation was in that situation, or that it was a heat in the moment thing, yeah take your Bat worshiping eyes off of the dark knight and look closely at how it was practically the same for Superman in MOS)
There's a difference between killing a person to save other innocent people when put in a situation that Batman can't get out of. And then intentionally killing a person while not really showing remorse.

Killing Joker in 89 and blowing up people + the kills in Batman Returns is intentional and done without any remorse. It's very Punisher. But it's also a nod to the golden age original Batman. They could get away with it because it was the first Batman movie and it was meant to pay homage to the 1939 Bats. Even if he was skidding on the edge of "Punisher" with Returns.

Two-Face in Forever was not really necessary. Throwing a bunch of coins so Two-Face got confused and lost his balance sounds like a planned out thing. It's intentional. He didn't have to do that if my memory serves me correctly.

Letting a person die who made his own decision by starting the plan and going on that train by himself is NOT the same as killing a man with lethal intention. If people say it's the same, you live in a different world. "Im not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you". It's not even close to the same thing. Ra's killed Ra's.

Two-Face in TDK? Zero planning here. It's a child or Two-Face. Batman is going to save the child in ANY medium when put into that situation. It's all pure instinct here. Stopping Two-Face was why he charged at him so he can grab the child, its not his fault Dent's neck broke and fell.

Talia's driver? This is another case where Batman (Superman can be thrown into this as well) having a choice between the entire city of Gotham. Millons...billions of lives versus the driver who is suicidal in his mission anyway. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, any superhero with integrity will have to kill that driver in order to save a VAST amount of other people. This is the same as Superman killing Zod or letting a family die + Zod was never going to give up. It's either kill Zod or he finds a way to kill hundreds of more people as time goes on.
 
I think Begins stated it best. "I'm no executioner".

He does everything he can to prevent the loss of life, but he does have to learn that there will be casualties in his war. The main thing is he doesn't go out with a premeditated plan to murder. Sometimes people die as a result of his actions, but he's not executing people. He's not The Punisher.
 
Yeah, it's all about him not being an executioner. If Batman put Ras on that train, then it's murder. If he killed Two-Face in mid conversation and Gordons kids were still with his wife? That's murder when he didn't have to. It was Dent or a child. The child will ALWAYS be saved. Talia's suicidal driver or billions of lives? The driver is dying even if Bats doesn't want to do it, he's going to do it.
 
I think Begins stated it best. "I'm no executioner".

He does everything he can to prevent the loss of life, but he does have to learn that there will be casualties in his war. The main thing is he doesn't go out with a premeditated plan to murder. Sometimes people die as a result of his actions, but he's not executing people. He's not The Punisher.

This:up:
 
The claim that "Batman not killing is BS" is BS in-and-of-itself. Out of all the superheroes in comics, the no-kill rule is more important to Batman than any other superhero and it forms who he is as a person more than any other superhero. This includes even Superman.

The vast majority of other superheroes don't kill simply because they're superheroes and killing is bad...because they're superheroes. It doesn't work that way for Batman. The reason for why he does not kill and does not use guns is engrained into his character. These two things have molded him and his mythos in a way that they haven't molded any other character and his mythos.

There are so many reasons for why this is the case that requires me to get into the entire essence and philosophy behind Batman and his mythos but I'll keep it simple: Notice how often the no-kill theme plays a roll in Batman stories. In most other superhero stories, it is there but is more concealed and only comes out once in a while throughout their stories. In Batman stories, the theme is constantly there and is in many ways the very core of many stories. Also notice how much controversy and disgust a lot of people have for Batman not killing the Joker. Some people have even said that they can't stand Batman altogether because of that. When you think about it, shouldn't they feel this way about most superheroes since it is a known fact that most superheroes don't kill? Yet barely anyone critiques Superman and Spider-Man for not killing Lex and the Green Goblin respectively, who are both far more dangerous than Joker in the first place. Batman gets so much more criticism in comparison to them for simply not killing a street-level psychopath. This is because, as I said (and I hate to say this since I really like both Spidey and Supes), there is no other superhero whose no-kill rule is as attached to the core of their being as it is to Batman.

When you make it ok for Batman to kill, you not only change him but you change his entire world. You completely alter the Batman/Joker dynamic. The Batman/Ra's dynamic. The Batman/Gordon dynamic. His friendship with Superman. The entire message behind vigilantism that comes with Batman. Robin's entire purpose for existing is gone. Everything about Batman as we know him and his world as we know it would completely change, and I don't think people realize this.

If you do not like the idea of Batman's no-kill rule being so attached to him, Batman is not a character that's meant for you in the same way how the Punisher is not a character aimed at people who don't like the idea of superheroes killing. I am not trying to offend anyone for saying this, but it is essentially true and there is nothing wrong with that. There is no comic book character that can be targeted and loved by everyone. That's not to say that you can't be bothered once in a while or have disturbing thoughts here and there about Batman's decision to spare the Joker (we all have those sometimes, even the hardcore fans) but if it constantly disturbs you to the point that it affects your overall enjoyment of Batman content and your overall opinion of Batman, then Batman is not a character designed to appeal to you personally.

As a side note, I find it very interesting how much criticism Batman gets for his methods from a political point of view. It seems that left-wings always critique him for having methods that are too extreme while right-wings critique him more for not having methods extreme enough.

Also, the claim that Batman is sparing the Joker for selfish reasons is not really true. In a way, he is keeping Gotham and the whole world more safe. That may sound ridiculous, but allow me to explain.

Psychologically speaking, Batman is a monster in human form. Bruce Wayne has intentionally transformed himself into such a larger-than-life creature. As Dennis O'Neil and Frank Miller once said, the interesting thing about Batman is that he is a monster but is on the good side. This same creature that is currently on our side walks on the edge of insanity every night. The only thing keeping him away from crossing that line - a line very thin when it comes to someone like Batman - is his no-kill rule. From the moment he breaks that rule, he has crossed that line. If he justifies one murder, he will be able to do it again.

That is where the issue with Batman killing arises. Batman is no cop. If a cop was to murder someone, he would still be bound by the laws of the legal system that would prevent him from crossing that line. And even if the cop did cross that line, it would barely have any effect because cop are just ordinary people with limits.

On the other hand, Batman does not have those luxuries. He answers to no one and is a larger-than-life creature not bound by human limits. Think about what it would mean if someone like Batman went around killing people. He is the world's greatest detective. Arguably the world's greatest tactician. Arguably the most obsessed and most motivated superhero in the DC universe to get the job done. Has prepared contingency plans to take down any member of the JLA if they were to go rogue. Is this really someone you would want to go around deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Imagine the danger that would come from that. There would be very little people could do to stop Batman in that situation.

On top of that, it is not Batman's job to kill the Joker in the first place. He set out to stop crimes from happening. Once he stopped the crime at hand, he lets the (honest) police take care of the rest. It is entirely up to the Gotham City Hall what happens from that point on and whether or not the Joker gets to live. And if the Joker got the death penalty tomorrow, Batman would have no problem with it (yes, I know there is a story where the Joker got the death penalty and Batman intervened but I found it to be very out of character).

Well fricking said :applaud
 
Right. Superman is a real hero, Batman isn't. Superman actually does what he does because he cares about other people. Batman does what he does because it brings him a sick joy.

Way to clearly miss the point about Batman.
 
Batman does what he does so that his city can be a better place and no one has to go through the pain and heartbreak that he experienced when his parents died. His motives are ENTIRELY selfless.
 
People do realize that Batman has killed people in almost every film that he's been in right?

1. Joker (Batman)

2. Penguin's Thugs (Batman Return)

3. Two-Face (Batman Forever)

4. Ra's Al Ghul (Batman Begins; letting him die is pretty much the same as killing him in a way)

5. Harvey Dent (The Dark Knight; given how much of a seasoned warrior Bruce was, there's no way that Bruce wouldn't know that by pushing Harvey off of the ledge that it'd result in his death)

6. Talia's Driver (The Dark Knight Rises; and honestly, before people start pulling up that bs about how urgent the situation was in that situation, or that it was a heat in the moment thing, yeah take your Bat worshiping eyes off of the dark knight and look closely at how it was practically the same for Superman in MOS)

I would actually point out it is quite intentional in TDK and TDKR (though the driver of the dump truck in TDK and all the ninjas in BB are not and are swept under the rug of logic).

It is the tragedy of Bruce Wayne in TDK that he will not kill the Joker because it would give Joker too much pleasure and means he wins. Meanwhile, he kills Harvey Dent, a man he once admired and arguably considered a friend (at least in costume). He feels like he failed Harvey and failed Gordon and even the city at large. That is one of the several reasons he takes the blame for Harvey's crimes. The irony is he broke his one rule on Dent, but will never do it to stop the Joker.

In TDKR, he kills when he comes back from the Pit. In fact, he breaks all his rules. That is the only time in the entire TDK trilogy (and fun fact: any Batman film) where Batman comes out in the daylight. There is no theatricality or deception. He walks up in broad daylight with an army of cops into a frontal assault on Bane and his goons. He forgives Selina for killing Bane. And yes, he essentially kills Talia's driver, Talia, and the other guys in the other Tumbler.

Why? Because he no longer views Batman as a rigid, absolutist construct. When he came out of that Pit, he was no longer the Batman fueled by anger, rage, self-hate and guilt of the comics. He let that go and so did he let go of the rules.

The rest of your list, I agree with.
 
Batman does what he does so that his city can be a better place and no one has to go through the pain and heartbreak that he experienced when his parents died. His motives are ENTIRELY selfless.

You don't know that though. The myth wouldn't be so rich if it didn't allow for varying interpretations. I think maybe I jumped the gun with some of my previous posts. I don't want it to sound like that I'm championing for one interpretation over the other, just that other interpretations are out there and that given what's revealed to us about the character... they are entirely justifiable.

Let's try and break it down. According to you what you just said, Batman's ultimate mission objective is to make Gotham a better place so that no one would have to experience what he experienced. Okay fine. Let's go with that. You could argue that Batman doesn't kill the Joker because he wishes to lead by example, and if he can get the people of Gotham to follow his lead... he will have planted the seeds for a brighter tomorrow.

But let me present a counter argument. If Batman's primary objective is to protect the people of Gotham first and foremost, and also the people he cares about as well (Robin, Alfred, Gordon)... doesn't he also owe it to them to rid the city of this maniacal mad man? Obviously the law isn't getting the job done and he keeps escaping Arkham. So seeing as how all else is failing, and Batman is probably the only man capable of taking him down... doesn't Batman owe it to the people he's trying to protect to rid them of this guy? By taking Joker's life, isn't he saving the life of Joker's next potential victim? Do you think that might justify it a bit?

Batman lives outside the law anyway right? He assaults people. He holds people against their will. Granted it's in the name of "justice" but can't he take it upon himself to also execute in the name of justice? If it's going to serve the greater good of the people of Gotham?
 
You don't know that though. The myth wouldn't be so rich if it didn't allow for varying interpretations. I think maybe I jumped the gun with some of my previous posts. I don't want it to sound like that I'm championing for one interpretation over the other, just that other interpretations are out there and that given what's revealed to us about the character... they are entirely justifiable.

Let's try and break it down. According to you what you just said, Batman's ultimate mission objective is to make Gotham a better place so that no one would have to experience what he experienced. Okay fine. Let's go with that. You could argue that Batman doesn't kill the Joker because he wishes to lead by example, and if he can get the people of Gotham to follow his lead... he will have planted the seeds for a brighter tomorrow.

But let me present a counter argument. If Batman's primary objective is to protect the people of Gotham first and foremost, and also the people he cares about as well (Robin, Alfred, Gordon)... doesn't he also owe it to them to rid the city of this maniacal mad man? Obviously the law isn't getting the job done and he keeps escaping Arkham. So seeing as how all else is failing, and Batman is probably the only man capable of taking him down... doesn't Batman owe it to the people he's trying to protect to rid them of this guy? By taking Joker's life, isn't he saving the life of Joker's next potential victim? Do you think that might justify it a bit?

Batman lives outside the law anyway right? He assaults people. He holds people against their will. Granted it's in the name of "justice" but can't he take it upon himself to also execute in the name of justice? If it's going to serve the greater good of the people of Gotham?

Already addressed this:

Also, the claim that Batman is sparing the Joker for selfish reasons is not really true. In a way, he is keeping Gotham and the whole world more safe. That may sound ridiculous, but allow me to explain.

Psychologically speaking, Batman is a monster in human form. Bruce Wayne has intentionally transformed himself into such a larger-than-life creature. As Dennis O'Neil and Frank Miller once said, the interesting thing about Batman is that he is a monster but is on the good side. This same creature that is currently on our side walks on the edge of insanity every night. The only thing keeping him away from crossing that line - a line very thin when it comes to someone like Batman - is his no-kill rule. From the moment he breaks that rule, he has crossed that line. If he justifies one murder, he will be able to do it again.

That is where the issue with Batman killing arises. Batman is no cop. If a cop was to murder someone, he would still be bound by the laws of the legal system that would prevent him from crossing that line. And even if the cop did cross that line, it would barely have any effect because cop are just ordinary people with limits.

On the other hand, Batman does not have those luxuries. He answers to no one and is a larger-than-life creature not bound by human limits. Think about what it would mean if someone like Batman went around killing people. He is the world's greatest detective. Arguably the world's greatest tactician. Arguably the most obsessed and most motivated superhero in the DC universe to get the job done. Has prepared contingency plans to take down any member of the JLA if they were to go rogue. Is this really someone you would want to go around deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Imagine the danger that would come from that. There would be very little people could do to stop Batman in that situation.

On top of that, it is not Batman's job to kill the Joker in the first place. He set out to stop crimes from happening. Once he stopped the crime at hand, he lets the (honest) police take care of the rest. It is entirely up to the Gotham City Hall what happens from that point on and whether or not the Joker gets to live. And if the Joker got the death penalty tomorrow, Batman would have no problem with it (yes, I know there is a story where the Joker got the death penalty and Batman intervened but I found it to be very out of character).
 
What evidence is there that Batman spares the Joker because he likes the chase, NONE AT ALL. Different interpretations are fine, but you have to have at least some evidence to back up your case, which there isn't for this.
 
What evidence is there that Batman spares the Joker because he likes the chase, NONE AT ALL. Different interpretations are fine, but you have to have at least some evidence to back up your case, which there isn't for this.

I don't think he likes having the Joker around, it just gives evil around him an identity. But I think it's a subconscious thing.
 
What evidence is there that Batman spares the Joker because he likes the chase, NONE AT ALL. Different interpretations are fine, but you have to have at least some evidence to back up your case, which there isn't for this.

It's not that he likes the chase, but perhaps he needs the chase.
 
Well it seems speculation they don't want to rehash orgin for new batman
was right on the money.And this report seems like they don't want a rookie
batman.

I hope Batman doesn't come off as villain for much of film.Lex Luthor will probally be real villain of movie but this reports hints at their different approaches leads to conflict.

Lex Luthor=Villain
Sympathetic villain or possible antihero=Metallo
Batman=Misguided hero.

No need to create a World's Finest yet. Just have a sequel that happens to feature Batman in it. Sell MOS2 as a SEQUEL, then tease Batman like Bane was in TDKR.

But first, make the movie, and don't bend toward batman oriented authors/studios ;)
 
I hope Batman doesn't come off as villain for much of film.Lex Luthor will probally be real villain of movie but this reports hints at their different approaches leads to conflict.

Were there any more recent reports on Lex Luthor at all? Sorry to repeat myself, but the likelihood of Luthor appearing seems less & less for me.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"