Small cameras hidden in a clock radio and an air purifier helped a North Stonington woman nab the worker responsible for stealing and tampering with her daughter's medication in a Westbrook home for the mentally disabled.
The worker, an employee of Vista Vocational & Life Skills Center, was fired, prosecuted and sent to prison in 2007 for two years.
Now the employee's transgression is surfacing again, this time in a civil courtroom where Vista is defending itself against a lawsuit filed by Jane and John Couto on behalf of their daughter, Melissa.
The lawsuit says Melissa Couto suffered "serious and severe consequences and damages" as a result of being deprived of her proper medication. The Coutos charge that the damages were caused by Vista's "negligence and carelessness" in failing both to supervise the proper administration of their daughter's medication and to investigate why her behavior changed.
Vista has insisted that it did nothing wrong and has vowed to fight the civil suit.
The lawsuit also accuses the facility of failing to supervise personnel, failing to hire "a sufficient number of competent, qualified personnel," and hiring "incompetent and unqualified persons."
Jane Couto sent her severely mentally disabled daughter to Vista in 2005 so she could learn life skills and get vocational training and counseling. Throughout her stay, Melissa Couto would need the medication Focalin, a stimulant, that prevented her from becoming lethargic and depressed.
At first, Melissa Couto seemed to do well at Vista. In January 2006, however, the Coutos noticed their daughter was becoming so tired that it was difficult for her to stay awake and alert. They wondered why medication that was once effective was no longer helping the young woman's fatigue and depression.
Then one day when Melissa Couto was visiting at home, sunlight shining through a window revealed that a capsule of medicine for Melissa was nearly empty. It appeared that someone at Vista was tampering with her medication.
With the help of her younger daughter, Ashley, Jane Couto hid small cameras inside Melissa's room at Vista. When the tape showed someone was entering Melissa Couto's room in the middle of the night and stealing her medicine, the Coutos called police.
2011年6月29日星期三
As public servants face cuts, one raises a stink about office aroma
Working in the public service stinks, apparently.
A Citizenship and Immigration employee has missed hundreds of hours of work over nearly a decade, claiming the smell of cologne and perfume at the office is so strong he just can’t take it.
At a time when public servants are fearing they may be next to be told their jobs have been eliminated via government-wide spending cuts, temporary resident visa processor Terrence Juba has kept his for years despite calling in sick as much as possible.
“Mr. Juba said that he has been absent from work for hundreds of hours,” states a Public Service Labour Relations Board report released Tuesday and written by adjudicator Paul Love. “He explored the possibility of working from home. Suggestions were made that he quit his job. He requested and was provided an air purifier.”
Reports from the Labour Relations Board often provide a window into the small battles waged inside the public service, where numerous avenues are available for federal employees to file grievances about their work conditions.
One 2006 email listed in the report indicated that Mr. Juba’s contract allowed him 176.5 hours of sick leave. Mr. Juba was asking to have his used sick days returned because his office did not act fast enough to accommodate his condition.
The report states that Mr. Juba’s boss, Paul Snow, took the condition seriously, going so far as to seek help from something described as “JOSH,” the “Joint Occupational Safety and Health Committee.”
The manager then arranged to have an expert on scents come in to teach Mr. Juba’s work colleagues at the Vegreville, Alta., Case Processing Centre about the importance of not being overly fragrant.
“The training was delivered by a person from outside the Centre to avoid stigmatizing those who were scent sensitive and to demonstrate that it was a serious issue,” according to the report.
A sign was also put up in the office that read: “Scent sensitive zone.”
Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed Mr. Juba’s request.
And that wasn’t the first time the public servant used the various grievance options available to workers inside government.
In 2002 Mr. Juba made a claim for compensation with the Workers’ Compensation Board, on the grounds that he had experienced headaches, a runny nose and occasional nosebleeds from being around co-workers wearing perfume.
A Citizenship and Immigration employee has missed hundreds of hours of work over nearly a decade, claiming the smell of cologne and perfume at the office is so strong he just can’t take it.
At a time when public servants are fearing they may be next to be told their jobs have been eliminated via government-wide spending cuts, temporary resident visa processor Terrence Juba has kept his for years despite calling in sick as much as possible.
“Mr. Juba said that he has been absent from work for hundreds of hours,” states a Public Service Labour Relations Board report released Tuesday and written by adjudicator Paul Love. “He explored the possibility of working from home. Suggestions were made that he quit his job. He requested and was provided an air purifier.”
Reports from the Labour Relations Board often provide a window into the small battles waged inside the public service, where numerous avenues are available for federal employees to file grievances about their work conditions.
One 2006 email listed in the report indicated that Mr. Juba’s contract allowed him 176.5 hours of sick leave. Mr. Juba was asking to have his used sick days returned because his office did not act fast enough to accommodate his condition.
The report states that Mr. Juba’s boss, Paul Snow, took the condition seriously, going so far as to seek help from something described as “JOSH,” the “Joint Occupational Safety and Health Committee.”
The manager then arranged to have an expert on scents come in to teach Mr. Juba’s work colleagues at the Vegreville, Alta., Case Processing Centre about the importance of not being overly fragrant.
“The training was delivered by a person from outside the Centre to avoid stigmatizing those who were scent sensitive and to demonstrate that it was a serious issue,” according to the report.
A sign was also put up in the office that read: “Scent sensitive zone.”
Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed Mr. Juba’s request.
And that wasn’t the first time the public servant used the various grievance options available to workers inside government.
In 2002 Mr. Juba made a claim for compensation with the Workers’ Compensation Board, on the grounds that he had experienced headaches, a runny nose and occasional nosebleeds from being around co-workers wearing perfume.
2011年6月26日星期日
Twisted ethics of an expert witness
Earlier this year, a four-page document with a bland title, "Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice," was filed in a civil matter percolating on the King County Courthouse's ninth floor. Hardly anyone took notice. Most everyone had moved on.
But that document — filed by lawyers tangled up in the estate of Stuart Greenberg, a nationally renowned psychologist whose life ended in scandal — signaled the end of a tortuous undertaking.
Greenberg had proved such a toxic force — a poison coursing through the state's court system — that it took more than three years for lawyers and judges to sift through his victims and account for the damage done.
For a quarter century Greenberg testified as an expert in forensic psychology, an inscrutable field with immense power. Purporting to offer insight into the human condition, he evaluated more than 2,000 children, teenagers and adults. His word could determine which parent received custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault, or what damages might be awarded for emotional distress.
At conferences and in classrooms, in Washington and beyond, he taught others to do what he did. He became his profession's gatekeeper, quizzing aspirants, judging others' work, writing the national-certification exam. His peers elected him their national president.
But his formidable career was built upon a foundation of hypocrisy and lies. In the years since Greenberg's death, while court officials wrestled over his estate, The Seattle Times worked to unearth Greenberg's secrets, getting court records unsealed and disciplinary records opened.
Those records are a testament to Greenberg's cunning. They show how he played the courts for a fool. He played state regulators for a fool. He played his fellow psychologists for a fool. And were it not for a hidden camera, he might have gotten away with it.
In summer 1984, Cathy Graden, a 27-year-old surgical nurse from Woodinville, was summoned to King County Superior Court for an emergency hearing in her child-custody case.
Her lawyer said a psychologist's report was behind the hearing. But Graden wasn't allowed to read the report. Nor was she allowed in the courtroom while the psychologist testified.
The psychologist, Stuart Greenberg, had been hired to help resolve a custody dispute involving Graden's only child, a 4-year-old boy whose bright, goopy finger-paintings Graden taped up all over the house.
Although appointed by the court, Greenberg was paid by the parties. He had interviewed the boy and both parents, and run a half-dozen tests with impressive names (the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, the Michigan Screening Profile of Parenting ... ).
Graden figured she had nothing to fear. She taught Sunday school; she did volunteer work; she had taken care of her son when the boy's father moved to Alaska after the couple's divorce. "I thought there was no way I could possibly lose this," she says.
Greenberg had arrived in Seattle five years earlier, hired by the University of Washington. A letter written by the department chairman called Greenberg a "last-minute replacement" for a psychology professor who'd resigned. Greenberg's credentials "were on hand," because he'd applied for some other position.
His credentials were acceptable but not extraordinary. He had a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, where his thesis was a word salad: "Stimulus and Response Generalization of Classes of Imitative and Non-imitative Behavior as a Function of Reinforcement, Task, Cues, and Number of Therapists." On Washington's psychology licensing test, one examiner marked Greenberg's professional judgment as "good," his knowledge and skills, "okay."
Teaching, Greenberg earned just $15,300 his first year. His second year, he was assigned only a single evening class. He left the university and moved into private practice. He picked up court appointments in Western Washington as a custody investigator, expert evaluator, arbiter, mediator, guardian ad litem, special master. He became enmeshed in the court system, buddying up to lawyers, judges, fellow experts.
On the stand, he radiated confidence. "He was just kind of a notch above the rest of us," says Nick Wiltz, a fellow forensic psychologist. "He was able to present reports and information in a very powerful way."
But Greenberg also demonstrated dubious judgment and a cavalier attitude toward his ethical obligations, which forbade even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
But that document — filed by lawyers tangled up in the estate of Stuart Greenberg, a nationally renowned psychologist whose life ended in scandal — signaled the end of a tortuous undertaking.
Greenberg had proved such a toxic force — a poison coursing through the state's court system — that it took more than three years for lawyers and judges to sift through his victims and account for the damage done.
For a quarter century Greenberg testified as an expert in forensic psychology, an inscrutable field with immense power. Purporting to offer insight into the human condition, he evaluated more than 2,000 children, teenagers and adults. His word could determine which parent received custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault, or what damages might be awarded for emotional distress.
At conferences and in classrooms, in Washington and beyond, he taught others to do what he did. He became his profession's gatekeeper, quizzing aspirants, judging others' work, writing the national-certification exam. His peers elected him their national president.
But his formidable career was built upon a foundation of hypocrisy and lies. In the years since Greenberg's death, while court officials wrestled over his estate, The Seattle Times worked to unearth Greenberg's secrets, getting court records unsealed and disciplinary records opened.
Those records are a testament to Greenberg's cunning. They show how he played the courts for a fool. He played state regulators for a fool. He played his fellow psychologists for a fool. And were it not for a hidden camera, he might have gotten away with it.
In summer 1984, Cathy Graden, a 27-year-old surgical nurse from Woodinville, was summoned to King County Superior Court for an emergency hearing in her child-custody case.
Her lawyer said a psychologist's report was behind the hearing. But Graden wasn't allowed to read the report. Nor was she allowed in the courtroom while the psychologist testified.
The psychologist, Stuart Greenberg, had been hired to help resolve a custody dispute involving Graden's only child, a 4-year-old boy whose bright, goopy finger-paintings Graden taped up all over the house.
Although appointed by the court, Greenberg was paid by the parties. He had interviewed the boy and both parents, and run a half-dozen tests with impressive names (the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, the Michigan Screening Profile of Parenting ... ).
Graden figured she had nothing to fear. She taught Sunday school; she did volunteer work; she had taken care of her son when the boy's father moved to Alaska after the couple's divorce. "I thought there was no way I could possibly lose this," she says.
Greenberg had arrived in Seattle five years earlier, hired by the University of Washington. A letter written by the department chairman called Greenberg a "last-minute replacement" for a psychology professor who'd resigned. Greenberg's credentials "were on hand," because he'd applied for some other position.
His credentials were acceptable but not extraordinary. He had a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, where his thesis was a word salad: "Stimulus and Response Generalization of Classes of Imitative and Non-imitative Behavior as a Function of Reinforcement, Task, Cues, and Number of Therapists." On Washington's psychology licensing test, one examiner marked Greenberg's professional judgment as "good," his knowledge and skills, "okay."
Teaching, Greenberg earned just $15,300 his first year. His second year, he was assigned only a single evening class. He left the university and moved into private practice. He picked up court appointments in Western Washington as a custody investigator, expert evaluator, arbiter, mediator, guardian ad litem, special master. He became enmeshed in the court system, buddying up to lawyers, judges, fellow experts.
On the stand, he radiated confidence. "He was just kind of a notch above the rest of us," says Nick Wiltz, a fellow forensic psychologist. "He was able to present reports and information in a very powerful way."
But Greenberg also demonstrated dubious judgment and a cavalier attitude toward his ethical obligations, which forbade even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Kahitna Meriahkan Sharp Historia
Sharp Historiaroad show di atrium e-Walk Balikpapan Superblock (BSB) berhasil menyedot ribuan warga Kota Minyak. Terlebih malam tadi. Orang-orang berkerumun menyaksikan secara langsung penampilan band kenamaan Kahitna yang diboyong oleh produsen eletronik asal Jepang itu.
Band yang diawaki oleh Hedi Yunus ini tampil pada pukul 08.00 Wita. Banyak lagu-lagu yang sempat hits di medio 90-an ikut dibawakan dalam penampilan band ini sekitar 2 jam in.
Itulah bagian dari serangkaian kemeriahan acara Sharp Historia yang digelar dari tanggal 24 hingga 26 juni 2011 di atrium e-Walk BSB. Sejak Jumat (24/6) produk kenamaan ini menggelar pameran dengan harga spesial, gratis lucky dip, diskon menarik, games dan belajar seni budaya Jepang dengan gratis.
Setelah sukses menggelar Sharp Historiaroad show yang pertama di kota Makassar pada tanggal 1 hingga 5 Juni 2011 lalu, kota berikutnya yang mendapat giliran adalah kota Balikpapan. Selain pameran produk terbaru, Sharp juga menampilkan produk zaman dulu seperti televisi, radio dan kulkas. Ini sesuai dengan tema acara Sharp Historia.
“Salah satu daya tarik dalam eksibisi ini adalah time tunnel display yaitu booth yang akan mengajak pengunjung menyaksikan perjalanan panjang sejarah perusahaan, evolusi teknologi dan produk-produk Sharp dari masa ke masa,” ujar SEID Brand Strategy Group Senior General Manager Yukihiro Nono.
Band yang diawaki oleh Hedi Yunus ini tampil pada pukul 08.00 Wita. Banyak lagu-lagu yang sempat hits di medio 90-an ikut dibawakan dalam penampilan band ini sekitar 2 jam in.
Itulah bagian dari serangkaian kemeriahan acara Sharp Historia yang digelar dari tanggal 24 hingga 26 juni 2011 di atrium e-Walk BSB. Sejak Jumat (24/6) produk kenamaan ini menggelar pameran dengan harga spesial, gratis lucky dip, diskon menarik, games dan belajar seni budaya Jepang dengan gratis.
Setelah sukses menggelar Sharp Historiaroad show yang pertama di kota Makassar pada tanggal 1 hingga 5 Juni 2011 lalu, kota berikutnya yang mendapat giliran adalah kota Balikpapan. Selain pameran produk terbaru, Sharp juga menampilkan produk zaman dulu seperti televisi, radio dan kulkas. Ini sesuai dengan tema acara Sharp Historia.
“Salah satu daya tarik dalam eksibisi ini adalah time tunnel display yaitu booth yang akan mengajak pengunjung menyaksikan perjalanan panjang sejarah perusahaan, evolusi teknologi dan produk-produk Sharp dari masa ke masa,” ujar SEID Brand Strategy Group Senior General Manager Yukihiro Nono.
2011年6月22日星期三
Design space: personal zone air purifier
Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42abe7d6-9d15-11e0-997d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1Q3tY53io
Traditional air purifiers claim to clean all the air in a room. Unless a room is completely sealed, however, new contaminants can get in.
Humanscale wanted to create a more targeted air purifier that would focus on cleaning the air being breathed – the so-called breathing zone around the user’s mouth.
The office furniture company teamed up with Swedish inventor Andrzej Loreth, who had developed an air-purification technology for big areas such as subway stations. Humanscale’s 20 designers and engineers in New York set about shrinking Mr Loreth’s technology down for personal use.
They built a device with an electric field at the back, which negatively charges all the particles as they are drawn into it by fans, so that the polluted particles stick to a positively charged paper filter inside. The air then passes through a carbon-based filter to eliminate odours and leaves the front of the unit, delivering purer air to the user’s breathing zone. The result is a near-silent, breeze-free device, so it can be positioned near the user.
The Personal Zone Air Purifier removes 96 per cent of airborne particulates at a range of 18in from the user, compared to a rate of 50 per cent for the best-in-class of the most common form of filters.
Traditional air purifiers claim to clean all the air in a room. Unless a room is completely sealed, however, new contaminants can get in.
Humanscale wanted to create a more targeted air purifier that would focus on cleaning the air being breathed – the so-called breathing zone around the user’s mouth.
The office furniture company teamed up with Swedish inventor Andrzej Loreth, who had developed an air-purification technology for big areas such as subway stations. Humanscale’s 20 designers and engineers in New York set about shrinking Mr Loreth’s technology down for personal use.
They built a device with an electric field at the back, which negatively charges all the particles as they are drawn into it by fans, so that the polluted particles stick to a positively charged paper filter inside. The air then passes through a carbon-based filter to eliminate odours and leaves the front of the unit, delivering purer air to the user’s breathing zone. The result is a near-silent, breeze-free device, so it can be positioned near the user.
The Personal Zone Air Purifier removes 96 per cent of airborne particulates at a range of 18in from the user, compared to a rate of 50 per cent for the best-in-class of the most common form of filters.
Is your air cleaner hazardous to your health?
If you're shopping for an air cleaner, you'll find two main types. The best kind simply filter bad stuff (pet dander, dust, pollen, smoke, etc.) out of the air you breathe. But other air purifiers try to "clean" the air by pumping out ozone -- a chemical that's actually helpful as long as it lingers in Earth's stratosphere, screening out the sun's damaging ultraviolet (UV) rays, and that turns dangerous when it descends into the air we breathe. ("Good up high, bad nearby," as the U.S Environmental Protection Agency says.) These so-called "air purifiers" can actually pollute your home's air and trigger breathing problems, experts warn in our latest report on air purifiers.
Ozone irritates the lungs and throat and can worsen asthma, weaken your body's ability to fight infections, and cause other health problems -- even in healthy people, the EPA warns. In fact, long-term exposure to even low levels of ozone can kill you, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The EPA cautions against using air cleaners that produce ozone. So does Good Housekeeping magazine. "Don't buy them," is Good Housekeeping's advice on ozone-generating air purifiers. Adding: "We feel so strongly that these products are hazardous to your health that we will not allow them to apply for use of the Good Housekeeping Seal or advertise in Good Housekeeping." If you already have one, "stop using it and cut the cord before you discard it so no one else can use it either." ConsumerReports.org refuses to recommend or even test them. And as of October 2010, the state of California has banned the sale of home-use air cleaners that produce more than 50 parts per billion of ozone.
So, how can you tell whether your air purifier is safe? Unfortunately, it can be tricky. If you see the word "ionic" or "electrostatic" on your air cleaner, it's probably dribbling out small amounts of ozone as a by-product. Also look for code words like "pure air," "energized oxygen," "saturated oxygen" or "trivalent oxygen" -- all of which can really mean ozone. You can also test for ozone with a free kit from the not-for-profit International Association of Air Cleaner Manufacturers (IAACM). To be on the safe side, avoid such electrostatic air cleaners, ConsumerReports.org advises: "We now believe that air purifiers that emit even small amounts of ozone (less than 50 parts per billion) are not your best choice."
To avoid the whole ozone problem, simply choose an air cleaner that uses filters only (usually HEPA and/or carbon filters). Experts say these do the best job of cleaning the air, anyway, and without any potentially dangerous side effects. All of the Best Reviewed air cleaners in our latest report produce zero ozone, from the elite IQAir HealthPro Plus (*Est. $900) to the more affordable Austin Air HealthMate (*Est. $490) and Honeywell Enviracaire 50250-N (*Est. $195) to the inexpensive 3M Filtrete 2200 Elite Allergen Reduction Filter (*Est. $23), a disposable filter that slips into your forced-air heating or cooling system.
Ozone irritates the lungs and throat and can worsen asthma, weaken your body's ability to fight infections, and cause other health problems -- even in healthy people, the EPA warns. In fact, long-term exposure to even low levels of ozone can kill you, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The EPA cautions against using air cleaners that produce ozone. So does Good Housekeeping magazine. "Don't buy them," is Good Housekeeping's advice on ozone-generating air purifiers. Adding: "We feel so strongly that these products are hazardous to your health that we will not allow them to apply for use of the Good Housekeeping Seal or advertise in Good Housekeeping." If you already have one, "stop using it and cut the cord before you discard it so no one else can use it either." ConsumerReports.org refuses to recommend or even test them. And as of October 2010, the state of California has banned the sale of home-use air cleaners that produce more than 50 parts per billion of ozone.
So, how can you tell whether your air purifier is safe? Unfortunately, it can be tricky. If you see the word "ionic" or "electrostatic" on your air cleaner, it's probably dribbling out small amounts of ozone as a by-product. Also look for code words like "pure air," "energized oxygen," "saturated oxygen" or "trivalent oxygen" -- all of which can really mean ozone. You can also test for ozone with a free kit from the not-for-profit International Association of Air Cleaner Manufacturers (IAACM). To be on the safe side, avoid such electrostatic air cleaners, ConsumerReports.org advises: "We now believe that air purifiers that emit even small amounts of ozone (less than 50 parts per billion) are not your best choice."
To avoid the whole ozone problem, simply choose an air cleaner that uses filters only (usually HEPA and/or carbon filters). Experts say these do the best job of cleaning the air, anyway, and without any potentially dangerous side effects. All of the Best Reviewed air cleaners in our latest report produce zero ozone, from the elite IQAir HealthPro Plus (*Est. $900) to the more affordable Austin Air HealthMate (*Est. $490) and Honeywell Enviracaire 50250-N (*Est. $195) to the inexpensive 3M Filtrete 2200 Elite Allergen Reduction Filter (*Est. $23), a disposable filter that slips into your forced-air heating or cooling system.
2011年6月20日星期一
Contest seeks ideas for $300 houses to shelter world's poor
What started as a theoretical question posed on the obstacles to global housing-for-the-poor has reached fruition as voting closed June 15th on the 300House project. Contestants around the world were challenged to design a house that could be constructed for less than US$300. Prize money of $25,000 was shared among the top sixteen ranked ideas, with two-week prototyping workshops worth $15,000 for the first, second and third designs ranked by the online voting community, and three awarded the Jury Prize.
The problem of housing is one faced by two billion people around the world. Initially a conceptual argument by bloggers Vijay Govindarajan and Christian Sarkar, the hypothetical idea of a house constructed for under US$300 received an overwhelming response and they began to bring together a collective of thinkers, designers and investors from around the world. Eventually, with partners Jovoto, a crowd-sourcing forum for sponsored design competitions, and US$25,000 prize money underwritten by international industrial firm Ingersoll Rand, a challenge was thrown down to bring affordable housing to the world's poor.
The detailed briefing was to provide a dwelling that was weather-proof & fire-proof, sustainable, secure, durable (up to fifty years) replicable and dignified, with a guideline cost of $300. The dwelling should be standardized, and yet take into consideration differences in region and available materials. It should therefore also be affordable, and self-improvable. It should be no smaller than 2.2 meters square (23.68 sq ft), with space to sleep and cook, access to light, drinking water and electricity and be secure. Sanitation was not part of the briefing, however, as it was envisaged as part of a centralized communal facility.
The problem of housing is one faced by two billion people around the world. Initially a conceptual argument by bloggers Vijay Govindarajan and Christian Sarkar, the hypothetical idea of a house constructed for under US$300 received an overwhelming response and they began to bring together a collective of thinkers, designers and investors from around the world. Eventually, with partners Jovoto, a crowd-sourcing forum for sponsored design competitions, and US$25,000 prize money underwritten by international industrial firm Ingersoll Rand, a challenge was thrown down to bring affordable housing to the world's poor.
The detailed briefing was to provide a dwelling that was weather-proof & fire-proof, sustainable, secure, durable (up to fifty years) replicable and dignified, with a guideline cost of $300. The dwelling should be standardized, and yet take into consideration differences in region and available materials. It should therefore also be affordable, and self-improvable. It should be no smaller than 2.2 meters square (23.68 sq ft), with space to sleep and cook, access to light, drinking water and electricity and be secure. Sanitation was not part of the briefing, however, as it was envisaged as part of a centralized communal facility.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)