Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Calling all old hippies
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Calling all old hippies

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32913
Post Options Post Options   Quote Snow Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Calling all old hippies
    Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:25
My problem is the use of the word hippy has totally put me off reading anything you post...or being even a little bit interested in your web site.

Actually......I have no interest anyway.
Coldness doth get away with the badness.
Back to Top
Progarchives.com
Advertisement
Sponsored links (registered users, log in to remove)
 
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:26
Originally posted by King of Loss

What about the ideal of cultural marxism that preaches "liberating tolerance" from the left and not anything from the right?
 
Interesting. I need to look into this further.
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:29
Originally posted by frippism

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

If it's Real - we believe in it!

Hm how about the church of apathy.

"If it's real... eh who cares why does it matter?"
 
Hey, man, maybe you've been listening to too much prog!  Wink
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:34
Originally posted by Epignosis


You're still dancing with the word that lacks meaning.  Libertarianism doesn't "work;" it doesn't try to.  It is an ethical ideal.  It doesn't seek to solve any problems.  In fact, libertarians will accept that in a libertarian society, there will still be poor people, that unfortunate things will happen, that some people will fail in their pursuit of happiness and therefore be unhappy, etc.  It posits that any system that would try to solve such issues through use of force is evil.
 
Well yes, i guess that the use of all force is evil. Except when you need to defend your own well-being against those who would threaten it with their own use of force. Imo, WW2 was one war that had to be fought, to stop a dictatorship that threated both the wellbeing and lives of many others. I would also endorse those that are standng up to the regimes in the likes of Syria who are using force against what began as peaceful demostrators trying to exert some democratic right.
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 05:41
Originally posted by tamijo

In any case i dont think the world will ever change, the Hippies (my generation) proved it ourself, as soon as we grew up to become in power ourself, we turned out to be just as greedy as the generation before.
 
The only thing You can do, is to be in balance with your own conscience, but you cant stop every bad Censored, trying to make profit from other peoples stupidity.
 
And you cant change the fact that the one with the money, is the one with the biggest gun, and the one with the biggest gun is the one who decides what is the truth. (be aware western world, your gun is about to scrink)
 
 
I don't believe that the hippie cause was a completely wasted one: i believe it helped set a precedent for what is happening around the world today. Still, i very much like your view that we need to be in balance with our own conscience, but imo we also need to believe that we really can make the world a better place (in the long term). I don't think the masses are as accepting anymore that the one with the biggest gun decides what is true.....


Edited by froggyted - May 28 2012 at 05:45
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: October 19 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6019
Post Options Post Options   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 06:49
I have a horrible feeling that a global government would suffer a similar fate to that of the world football governing body FIFA: A small failed Swiss footballer would suggest that racism can be solved with a handshake, women should wear tighter shorts and low cut shirts to combat sexism and that the introduction of goal-line technology is about as likely as any official coming up squeaky clean in an independent and external corruption inquiry.
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 07:55
Originally posted by ExittheLemming

I have a horrible feeling that a global government would suffer a similar fate to that of the world football governing body FIFA: A small failed Swiss footballer would suggest that racism can be solved with a handshake, women should wear tighter shorts and low cut shirts to combat sexism and that the introduction of goal-line technology is about as likely as any official coming up squeaky clean in an independent and external corruption inquiry.
 
I agree that there aren't many encouraging precedents and FIFA certainly isn't one of them! If i was to put my cynical hat on i would suggest that maybe the reason officials at the top have resisted goal-line technology is that the game is actually bent at the highest levels, to the point where maybe some matches are actually fixed by buying match officials. Goal-line technology would certainly cause problems in such a scenario.
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: October 19 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6019
Post Options Post Options   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:01
^ Sorry for going off topic but yes, agreed, there's word for what you describe.....ItalyWink
Back to Top
aginor View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Flåklypa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18035
Post Options Post Options   Quote aginor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:23
im more of a hippo then a hippi
you know Procol Harum created their own nieche in prog in the 70s like theyr own symph prog sound which they molded to their own IMO, quote Aginor
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:44
Originally posted by ExittheLemming

^ Sorry for going off topic but yes, agreed, there's word for what you describe.....ItalyWink
 
Watch out for the mafia, man!  Wink
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:53
Originally posted by aginor

im more of a hippo then a hippi
 
.....er, maybe that's a start.....
 
BTW, how do you multiquote on this forum, or do you just have to cut and paste?
Back to Top
dreadpirateroberts View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2011
Location: AU
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 947
Post Options Post Options   Quote dreadpirateroberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 08:59
^ yep, cut and paste is easiest  :)

Edited by dreadpirateroberts - May 28 2012 at 09:00
We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
JazzMusicArchives.
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 09:05
Originally posted by dreadpirateroberts

^ yep, cut and paste is easiest  :)
 
Thanks. Have just noticed my own forum doesn't have multiquote either. A pity, it makes life much easier.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30755
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 09:49
Originally posted by froggyted

Originally posted by Epignosis


You're still dancing with the word that lacks meaning.  Libertarianism doesn't "work;" it doesn't try to.  It is an ethical ideal.  It doesn't seek to solve any problems.  In fact, libertarians will accept that in a libertarian society, there will still be poor people, that unfortunate things will happen, that some people will fail in their pursuit of happiness and therefore be unhappy, etc.  It posits that any system that would try to solve such issues through use of force is evil.
 
Well yes, i guess that the use of all force is evil. Except when you need to defend your own well-being against those who would threaten it with their own use of force. Imo, WW2 was one war that had to be fought, to stop a dictatorship that threated both the wellbeing and lives of many others. I would also endorse those that are standng up to the regimes in the likes of Syria who are using force against what began as peaceful demostrators trying to exert some democratic right.


Taxes are an example of force.  Wink
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Smurph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 14:10
Why the hell do liberal people agree with actual liberals? I think an actual "liberal" would be a person that liberally thinks on their own and detests the government.
 
At this point I'm fed up with all of it and realize that I have no control over the evils that hold this world together. I'd rather just try to live through it and treat individuals with love and respect.
 
This might be a dangerous attitude to have, but if you think that you're really going to fix anything, you are mistaken. More freedom means capitalism will take advantage of the weak, but more government intervention means the government will take advantage of their power, the weak, and promote specialized interests.
 
Nothing will ever be ok. Neither side brings peace and true equality to the table. Everything stinks. Poop. Diahrea.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29130
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 14:47
You've obviously given a lot of thought to this subject long before I posted and I haven't, so excuse me if I gloss over some of your points...
 
Originally posted by froggyted

 
Apologies for the late reply, but for some reason i was not informed of updates to this thread despite still being subscribed.
That's a measure to reduce server overhead - you will receive one update notification following each visit you make, not for every post made since your last visit - if you do not revisit the thread then your inbox will not fill with a series of redundant emails.
Originally posted by froggyted

  
Ok, that's an extremely well reasoned and well worded argument you've put forward, Dean, and is the sort of calibre of debate i'm hoping to get going on the site forum, so if you ever want to drop in you're welcome. I must stress though that i didn't personally use the term 'liberal' in either that article or responses to this thread (although this is a label i am comfortable with).
 
The point of the global government article, and the other one, was to stimulate debate. I do not propose to be an expert, but needed some content on the site quickly; the quality of the articles will improve as time allows. In my own personal view, we do need some form of global government as a means of co-ordinating all human actions which affect the globe as a whole. Industrial pollution, food production, forest clearances etc. have an effect far beyond national boundaries. Obviously this is only a point of view. Opinions will vary on every subject under the sun: that's why democracy is such a noble concept, because we can only ever pool the mass of opinions and come up with some pragmatic solution that reflects the (hopefully well-informed) view of the majority. We are of course talking of some future scenario here: old tribal loyalties are ingrained into the human race probably from prehistoric times, and will die hard. However, i am an optimist, and i like to think a lot of the great prog musicians are too, and believe that the human race is evolving for the better; moreover, this seems to be accelerating in recent times with the greater accesibility to knowledge and exposure to the diverse cultures of the world. If you look at Britain as an example, and indeed most of the Western world, there is greater social equality than there was a few centuries ago - although this was hard-fought by the masses and certainly wasn't, for the most part, bequeathed them by the privileged echelons of society; the reactionary, conservative christian Church has a diminishing influence; we have a far more enlightened view towards other cultures (viz. the abolition of slavery). These are of course but three examples of many.
Social changes over the past 150 years have not been hard-fought by the masses, quite the reverse - practically everything achieved has been through the ideology of a select few (Keir Hardy, William Wilberforce,etc) through the support of a slightly broader but still select number of influencial supporters - not really "by the masses". You could argue that capitalism and monetarism follow the same profile and were hard-fought by the masses because they were implemeted by the ruling party as voted for by "the masses". Democracy tends to be like that when almost two thirds of a population voted against the elected ruling party.
Originally posted by froggyted

 
Imo, a global government doesn't have to equate to a Big Brother scenario: in an enlightened society it could simply be a vehicle of the people (rather than 'for' the people) that co-ordinates those aspects of policy that do need to be co-ordinated on a global scale.
I expect it to be too unwieldy to implement because "of the people" means that the people have a direct say in every policy, which either means continuous referendums or pages of pre-prepared questionnaires answered by every person on the planet - this is never going to happen, as always it will be the most motivated that will act, not the most informed or the most affected. As the size of government increases the bureaucracy to support it increases and the detachment from "the people" increases. In a small society with small government the proportion of "for the people" politicians are more representative "of the people" - once the number people to each elected official goes beyond those that personally know the person elected then there is a seperation of interest between the elected official and those they represent.
Originally posted by froggyted

 
Regardless of your views on climate change i would be very surpised if you were to argue that actions such as the mass deforestation in the Amazon jungle won't have a destructive effect on global climate if left unchecked.
Big smile I like a challenge Wink - will  this surprise you? :
The truthful answer is we don't know... The traditional "global warming" argument of deforestation has given way to "climate change" and what was considered to be the prime cause (carbon cycle) is now ranked third behind water-cycle and heat-management, the reason behind this is that while trees are good at sequestering carbon and good at releasing oxygen, so is every plant on the planet including all those planted in the cleared forests... What we don't seem to consider is that deforestation on a massive global scale has been going on for the past 25,000 years, both naturally through forest fires and "unnaturally" through the direct action of man. In the past the whole of the UK and Europe was forest - those were cleared by men armed with stone axes and wood was the main construction material for literally thousands of years for shelter, tools, transport and fuel - what we call the stone-age, bronze-age, iron-age and industrial-age were all in reality variants on the wood-age. The one thing forests do not provide is food.
Originally posted by froggyted

 
You simply can't rely on nation states and capitalist (profit first) vested interests to police such things.
In principle you can (or so the libertarians will argue) as the system should self-regulate. Whether that is true or not (or whether you have the courage to find out because if they are wrong then we're all stuffed), the alternative is even less palitable - how do you police without the threat of retribution?
Originally posted by froggyted

 
Whilst still studying, more years ago than i now care to remember, i came across an excellent exposition of freedom. I don't have it to hand at present, but basically it suggested that everybody should be given the maximum amount of freedom to do what they wished, so long as it didn't impact on other peoples' freedom. An example of this in the real world would be to play your music as loud as you wished as long as it didn't annoy anybody else, which in effect would mean either playing it at a fairly low volume or reducing your proximity to others, thereby providing us with a definition of freedom that maximises everybody's freedom, and not just those of some at the expense of others.This is a definition of freedom i subscribe to, one which i don't think sits very well with capitalism, and if you applied that to a global government it would be a government that minimised interference in peoples' lives except where absolutely necessary (as defined by the people themselves democratically). Thus you could, for example, have regional and local communes and self-help groups flourishing, and pursuing their own chosen lifestyle, within a larger whole, rather than wielding a one-size-fits-all mallet to the masses as the old communist and military dictatorships have done. As i said earlier, this is some futuristic vision, but perhaps one we should and could start moving towards.
no answer
Originally posted by froggyted

 
Do we really want the human race to continue the endless in-fighting over ideals and resources that has ravaged the world, since recorded history at least, and which could utimately devastate it? We already have the technology to apply a system of direct electronic voting where every citizen could vote on individual issues rather than having some quasi parliament of so-called 'representatives' do it for us. Obviously, both the will and the infrastructure are a long way off, but i'm sure a lot of prog fans will also be readers of science-fiction and will have the imagination to accept that such future scenarios are not totally unfeasible.
o...kay. What you are describing is wholly impractical as it requires every citizen on the planet to be in the upper portions of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and thus have the inclination and time to participate in global government to the degree required... and once we have achieve that for all citizens of planet Earth we won't need a global government. 
Originally posted by froggyted

 
With regard to your views on climate change, i agree with a lot of what you say, and concede that opinion is divided on whether or not there is yet definitive proof that man-made climate change is currently underway. It has to be noted, however, that many scientists do feel they have conclusive proof of this. There was a guy on BBC News 24's Hardtalk programme a couple of years ago, an environmental scientist of some sort, who actually thought that it was already too late: that we had already passed over the tipping point and that, ultimately, the only way what he saw as inevitable global food shortage would be resolved would be by a drastic culling of the world's population by global war. Whether or not this comes to be, even though i agree with you that we should be very wary of tampering with things we're not sure about, i still believe we can still implement policies that reduce deforestation and protect our global food production capabilities. Given that there is a limited supply of global resources, e.g. fossil fuels, i don't think it would do any harm to reduce the consumption of them either, even in the unlikely event that their consumption is not contributing to global warming.
What I rally against is ineffectual appeasement, and that's what we have at the moment - CFL light bulbs and unplugging phone chargers piss me off greatly - as do so-called "Eco" solutions such as electric and hybrid cars powered by lithium batteries and the stupid supermarket carrier bags nonsense... Do people truly honestly believe that any of that actually achieves anything? It's homoeopathic consumerism - a whopping great green placebo sugar-pill to make you feel better that does absolutely nothing. IF (and that's a stonking great big IF) mankind can affect climate in a positive way by design and action (as opposed to in a negative way by accident and inaction) then to achieve any predictable effect the input stimulus has to be massive - chaos theory and butter-fly wings do not apply - and that is horrendously dangerous and woefully irresponsible. Every well-meaning positive change that the human race has attempted on the environment has been either totally ineffectual or stupendously disastrous.
 
The policing, regulation and control we need is not just on the those who are doing harm to the environment, but also on the eco-warriors who through ineptitude and ill-conceived idealism think they are doing good.
Originally posted by froggyted

 
The debate could go on and on, and that's partly the point of the website and associated forum: to enhance understanding of such issues by discussion. We certainly can't rely on the vested interests of superpowers and corporate giants to inform us of the truth, or to point us in the right direction.
What we are slowly learning is we cannot rely on anybody to point us in the right direction - vested interest affects all concerned.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
stacyj View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2012
Location: Sanford,NC.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75
Post Options Post Options   Quote stacyj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 14:58
  ....oh really?
cant we all just get-along?
...as in down the road? Shocked
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3681
Post Options Post Options   Quote manofmystery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 15:17
This seems like a thread I should be involved in but I'd do feel like catching up on the reading LOL.
 
By the way Epig, when Slarti says this:
 
Originally posted by Slartibartfast

Anti-liberals are the most closed minded people I have ever encountered.  They seem to take great glee in accusing us of practicing that while doing ti themselves...
 
 
I think we all know he's referring to me.  Of course, he is an extremely close minded person when it comes to politics and problem solving.  Also, I'm a classical liberal so Slarti is the anti-liberal, anyway (just to get into the proper use of terms debate again LOL) .


Edited by manofmystery - May 28 2012 at 15:18
Back to Top
froggyted View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Post Options Post Options   Quote froggyted Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2012 at 19:18
Originally posted by Dean

You've obviously given a lot of thought to this subject long before I posted and I haven't, so excuse me if I gloss over some of your points...  /
 
Dean, there's no doubting that you're an excellent and knowledgeable debater, but i get the impression that we're not going to agree, and that everything i propose you're going to shoot down in flames, so, seeing as its late and i've had a crap evening (personal issues) i'm not going to attempt to answer every point that you make, particularly as i need to put a lot of my available time into further imrpoving my website and promoting the forum there. You come across to me as a cynic who seems to think that no change that we (the human race) can bring about is going to fundamentally improve the society we already have, and maybe you're right, but i guess that if we all believe this then we might as well just let the system tick along merrily as it is and consign millions more of the human race to premature death at the hands of uncaring corporate monoliths, despots, lunatics and gun-wielding egotists ( i guess the latter three are more or less the same thing).
 
I will, however, make a few brief points, but forgive me for not directly referencing your comments due to time constraints:
  • Social change has imo been hard-fought by the masses, though undoubtedly inspired by the enlightened visionaries. Strikes, marches and sit-ins have resulted in governments, certainly in the UK and no doubt elsewhere too, conceding increasing degrees of power to the masses. That's how the universal vote was won in Britain, and how shipyards on the Clyde were reprieved from closure, to name two examples. Even when strikes and similar protest action had no immediate positive effect (e.g. Jarrow) they helped shift the mindset amongst the ruling elite which resulted in reform further along the line. Obviously, in countiries like Britain and the US most of these concessions were bequeathed by, rather than wrested from, the ruling elite because these countries are relatively democratic; that's not to say that there wouldn't have been bloody revolution if the need had arisen. I'm sure you would probably put forward a convincing argument why the masses didn't help bring about the closure of America's military engagemment in Vietnam, but i guess that many of those who protested would disagree.
  • The system patently doesn't self-regulate effectively; that's why people march and protest.
  • Of course there has been massive deforestation over the last millennium, no doubt about it. During most of that time, however, the world's population was much smaller, and there was far less man-made pollution to add to the equation. I'm sure you're not suggesting that the climate experts who warn against global warming have somehow overlooked these factors (or perhaps they are covertly employed by vested interests who wish to purvey some myth about climate change to profiteer from it?.....)

As i say, your a great debater, but you have basically put a wall up against almost every point i've argued and therefore i doubt we're ever going to agree on much. We're on opposite sides of a divide. I guess you could argue that there's not much hope for improving the world given the diversity of opinion that this thread exemplifies, but i live in hope. Thanks very much though, for all the time and trouble you've taken to debate this, and the interest you've taken, i genuinely appreciate it. I hope to have similar in-depth discussions on my own forum in time, but given that i only posted on this forum in the hope of getting a few people genuinely interested in participating in my own website i think that at this point i must say that my energies are best spent elsewhere. I would happily continue such a debate on the Globalfightback forum, but this isn't the place for me. I'm a great fan of prog music, amongst other genres, but don't get much time to debate music anymore; however, i'll probably drop by from time to time on other threads and will look forward to talking music with you.



Edited by froggyted - May 28 2012 at 19:20
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26018
Post Options Post Options   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 29 2012 at 08:00
Originally posted by geneyesontle

Well, I call this topic: The Eternal Fight That Will Never End.
 
Anyone agree? Big smileSmileBig smileSmile

The big question then:  Is love all you need? LOL

(bonus question pre-hippie question: Does she really love you yeah yeah yeah?)Tongue


Edited by Slartibartfast - May 29 2012 at 08:15
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.