|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Alex Jones is Wrong on London Terror Drill
By Fintan Dunne, Editor
BreakForNews.com
July 11th, 2005 5pm ET
Radio host, Alex Jones is spreading misleading, false and overblown claims linking Peter Power, a crisis management consultant and former member of Britain's anti-terror police, to a 'terrorism drill' which Jones alleges was used to provide cover for State perpetrators of the multiple blasts.
The wild allegations leave others presenting so-called "conspiracy theories" about these attacks open to ridicule --because of false claims by the most reknowned radio show on these topics.
The weekend article by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones was published on the PrisonPlanet.com website.
They claim that in a BBC Radio 5 interview on July 7th, Peter Power admitted that his Visor Consulting firm: "was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life."
The article goes on to claim that the Visor Consulting drill: "acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise."
Jones and Watson then equated this drill with drills reported to have taken place on the morning of 9/11/2001. They wrote: "The CIA was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning. It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11."
The article gives the clear impression that up to 1,000 personnel were involved in a London drill -including field agents who were active in the London Underground and providing cover for those planting the bombs.
That couldn't be more wrong.
In fact, Power's consultancy firm was running a small "corporate wargame" drill for the management team of a British company with 1,000 employees. Here's the BBC transcript of the interview Power gave [our emphasis]:
POWER: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now." [mp3 Audio]
Clearly, the figure of 1,000 refers to the size of the company whose managers were being drilled - and not to the number of participants in the drill.
Furthermore, any savvy investigator knows that these types of private-sector "risk management" drills never use field staff. Neither do these low-level corporate drills have active involvement of police or other security forces.
Despite Jones and Watson's claims, this drill was in no way comparable to U.S. drills and wargames on 9/11 -which were being run by active-duty security forces in the U.S. military, federal agencies, the FAA and various emergency services.
The London corporate drill was just a glorified administration seminar where managers get to use security buzzwords --while seated around an office table guessing how they would respond to loss of available staff for call centers, power outages, or travel restrictions, etc..
Bear in mind that Peter Power was doing a bit of hyping too, playing up the idea that his firm was so well attuned that it was running a terror drill about bombs at "precisely at the railway stations where it happened." But in a seperate, simpering TV interview [Video Mplayer] Power admits that their exercise also included mainline rail targets as well as the Underground. His firm runs these terror seminars frequently.
Anyway, any half-competent drill would predictably be based on attacks on central London Underground stations. Duuuh! Probably some of these overlapped with the actual targets.
There is much to indicate that the official version of the London bombings is not the real story -but this tale about a co-incident terror drill is going nowhere on the current evidence.
It a close call between Power and Jones as to who squeezed the most hype out of all this.
TINFOIL HAT FODDER
At the very least this has been a catastrophic error by Alex Jones and Paul Watson, sure to reflect badly on Jones' reputation.
Even more important, it will inevitably be used to laugh off critics of the official line on both the 9/11 attacks and the London bombings. The article turns all skeptics into tinfoil hat fodder.
Some of these skeptics will see this article by Alex Jones as part of a deliberate setup to try destroy the credibility of those who question the authorities.
All of which is a pity, not least because Peter Power is a figure well worth closer scrutiny -just not the kind of misplaced hype offered by Alex Jones.
Jones was careful to let Power off the hook in that article: "Mr. Power and Visor Consultants need not have been 'in on the bombing' or anything of that nature.."
Perhaps not, but Peter Power, MD of Visor Consultants is a gent who is well worth a much closer look. He is the ultimate insider in the coyly-named Business Continuity(BC) marketplace.
He was selected by the UK Government to write the Best Management Practice Guide on Crisis & BC Planning & Risk Management, a hotly-trafficed download from the DTI web site [pdf]. He also wrote the book on BC for the British Bankers Association. He is all over the media and was a previous award winner for BC 'personality of the year'.
His firm's clients in London have included JP Morgan Chase, ING, Mellon, Lloyds TSB, Morley Fund Management, Bank of New York, Arcadia Group, FCO and Universal Music.
All of which is not surprising, as he has a senior Scotland Yard background which included a stint at the Anti Terrorist Branch, and a deputy forward control role at the Libyan People Bureau siege. He frequently speaks on TV & radio, and is the darling of BBC news and talk shows.
Power surely still has close links with Anti Terror branch, and seems to operate as a "good cop" for the establishment -in PR terms. Whenever there is a terror incident, there is Peter on the BBC with a relaxed attitude; with a habitual, understanding line about how "stretched" are the security services; and with a reassuring tone which implies that all is jolly good, top-notch and well in hand.
He even once described identity cards as redundant -sensibly arguing that terrorists conceal their purpose, rather than their identity. All this counterpoints nicely with the "bad cop" security propaganda put out by official sources.
CURIOUS BLASTS
But some of those many appearances by Power stand out in the context of the latest London Underground bombings.
One was the occasion of the rocket attack on the MI6 spy headquarters itself -in central London at Vauxhall Cross, just before 2200 on 21 September, 2000. The missile smashed an eighth floor window on the southern side of the building, home to the Foreign Intelligence Service.
Although dissident Irish republicans were the prime suspects, no group ever claimed responsibility.
Another was the curious bombing of the BBC just six months later on 5 March, 2001. About 15 pounds of high explosive left in a taxi abandoned outside BBC Television Centre caused only minor damage. Attacks against the media are pretty rare. The same dissident republicans were suspected.
After the MI6 rocket attack, as usual Power was quoted by the BBC. He described the MI6 building as one of the most high profile in central London.
"If you wanted to make a name for yourself, get yourself back onto the front pages, why not go for something that's high profile and minimal risk," he said.
Why not, indeed.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| deadman wrote: |
When I make a point and you counter with "David Icke" - you lost! |
Shows what your about . News for you You don't decide the rules
|
I don't make up the rules (of logic) but I do follow them, unlike you.
Imagine a formal debate, say in high school. If one person countered the other's argument with "You smell", it wouldn't cut it. It doesn't cut it here either.
You seem to think it's a legitimate tactic.
Your complete ignorance of the rules of logic and argument, and your demonstrated inability to think for yourself suggest you are nothing more that a propaganda spreading peon.
| Quote: |
It is your job to make the case and you didn't do it. |
News for you: you posted it, you make the case. Not doing too well so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
Alex Jones is Wrong on London Terror Drill
By Fintan Dunne, Editor
BreakForNews.com
July 11th, 2005 5pm ET
Radio host, Alex Jones is spreading misleading, false and overblown claims linking Peter Power, a crisis management consultant and former member of Britain's anti-terror police, to a 'terrorism drill' which Jones alleges was used to provide cover for State perpetrators of the multiple blasts.
The wild allegations leave others presenting so-called "conspiracy theories" about these attacks open to ridicule --because of false claims by the most reknowned radio show on these topics.
The weekend article by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones was published on the PrisonPlanet.com website.
They claim that in a BBC Radio 5 interview on July 7th, Peter Power admitted that his Visor Consulting firm: "was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life."
The article goes on to claim that the Visor Consulting drill: "acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise."
Jones and Watson then equated this drill with drills reported to have taken place on the morning of 9/11/2001. They wrote: "The CIA was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning. It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11."
The article gives the clear impression that up to 1,000 personnel were involved in a London drill -including field agents who were active in the London Underground and providing cover for those planting the bombs.
That couldn't be more wrong.
In fact, Power's consultancy firm was running a small "corporate wargame" drill for the management team of a British company with 1,000 employees. Here's the BBC transcript of the interview Power gave [our emphasis]:
POWER: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now." [mp3 Audio]
Clearly, the figure of 1,000 refers to the size of the company whose managers were being drilled - and not to the number of participants in the drill.
.....
Why not, indeed.
|
|
As I said before, the only mistake they cite is bolded above.
What they fail to disprove is in large font
What they fail to disprove is significant. The mistake they point out is inconsequential. If it was corrected, it would make no difference to the argument that:
1. A bombing scenario that involved "precisely" the same times and places as the real bombings is suspicious and deserves further investigation.
[note I said "scenario", not "exercise". Other things were probably going on as part of the exercise - it's the one scenario that is "precisely" the same that is significant
2. The existence of the exercise would provide cover for any suspicious activity leading up to the bombings.
Joo, unless you can counter what I argue above your article is discredited.
Go ahead, if you can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="deadman"][
1. The article is better than what Alex Jones comes up with on 9-11
| Quote: |
| What they fail to disprove is significant. The mistake they point out is inconsequential. If it was corrected, it would make no difference to the argument that: |
Jones is trying to give one impression and it was false. He was trying to imply that it was a huge drill with many people involved when in fact it was a war game in an office.
| Quote: |
| The article gives the clear impression that up to 1,000 personnel were involved in a London drill -including field agents who were active in the London Underground and providing cover for those planting the bombs. |
Jones misrepresented what was going on. and he is busted.
| Quote: |
| 1. A bombing scenario that involved "precisely" the same times and places as the real bombings is suspicious and deserves further investigation. |
No precisely the same stations.
And of course it is not hard to imagine that he was hyping his firm
Is it so hard imagine a terror attack during the morning rush hour and main stations?
Futhermore there were places in their simulation that were different from the attacks.
They also run such simulations all the time.
| Quote: |
| 2. The existence of the exercise would provide cover for any suspicious activity leading up to the bombings. |
You have zero evidence of any suspicous activity.
| Quote: |
| Joo, unless you can counter what I argue above your article is discredited |
.
You don't make the rules.
People like David Icke , Jeff Rense Alex Jones don't say what they do cause they are looking for the truth.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="deadman"][
I don't make up the rules (of logic) but I do follow them, unlike you.
| Quote: |
| Imagine a formal debate, say in high school. If one person countered the other's argument with "You smell", it wouldn't cut it. It doesn't cut it here either. |
Your sources have already shown to be liars. They are no longer worthy of an sincere answer
| Quote: |
| You seem to think it's a legitimate tactic. |
Yes with your kind . knock down one conspiracy then you say then disprove this. Your kind doesn't pay any price for making false accusations.
| Quote: |
| Your complete ignorance of the rules of logic and argument, and your demonstrated inability to think for yourself suggest you are nothing more that a propaganda spreading peon. |
No your sources have already been shown to be nonsense so someone ought not be expected to treat them as a legitmate source.
[
| Quote: |
| It is your job to make the case and you didn't do it. |
that is what you saybut you are a David Icke follower.
| Quote: |
| News for you: you posted it, you make the case. Not doing too well so far |
Your are the deadman and your opinions aren't worth anything.
| Quote: |
| The article gives the clear impression that up to 1,000 personnel were involved in a London drill -including field agents who were active in the London Underground and providing cover for those planting the bombs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| deadman wrote: |
I don't make up the rules (of logic) but I do follow them, unlike you.
Imagine a formal debate, say in high school. If one person countered the other's argument with "You smell", it wouldn't cut it. It doesn't cut it here either. |
Your sources have already shown to be liars. They are no longer worthy of an sincere answer |
A. We're not talking about sources. We're talking about you and me having an argument.
B. The validity of an argument is independent of the truth of it's premises. You can either refute the argument if you agree with the premises, or argue that one or more of the premises is false.
It's all a bit above your head isn't it?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Imagine a formal debate, say in high school. If one person countered the other's argument with "You smell", it wouldn't cut it. It doesn't cut it here either.
You seem to think it's a legitimate tactic. |
Yes with your kind . |
No, you smell. Grow up, Smelly.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Your complete ignorance of the rules of logic and argument, and your demonstrated inability to think for yourself suggest you are nothing more that a propaganda spreading peon. |
...confused blathering about legitimate sources... |
Do you think what you posted above is a "legitimate source"?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| It is your job to make the case and you didn't do it. |
that is what you saybut you are a David Icke follower. |
Actually, you said that.
| I wrote: |
| News for you: you posted it, you make the case. |
It's not my opinion, it's your responsibility. Which you have failed to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, Joo, I'll take this slowly. I understand you have a logical handicap, and I'll try and work with your disability.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
1. The article is better than what Alex Jones comes up with on 9-11 |
Irrelevant. We're talking about the merits of your article.
Besides - "Better than Alex Jones on 911" is not saying much, from your point of view.
You want your article to have more credibility than that, don't you.
| Quote: |
| What they fail to disprove is significant. The mistake they point out is inconsequential. If it was corrected, it would make no difference to the argument that: |
Fact: Jones made an error of fact.
Opinion: (Joo wrote) "Jones is trying to give one impression and it was false. He was trying to imply that it was a huge drill with many people involved when in fact it was a war game in an office. "
Your opinion is not fact.
| Quote: |
Jones misrepresented what was going on. and he is busted.
|
"misrepresented"=opinion
therefore "busted"= opinion only
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| 1. A bombing scenario that involved "precisely" the same times and places as the real bombings is suspicious and deserves further investigation. |
Not precisely the same stations. |
The man in charge of the operation says "precisely". It made the hair on his neck stand up. That indicates there was an improbable degree of "coincidence".
You and your hit-piece article say "not precisely". I believe him. You are not a credible source, sorry.
| Quote: |
And of course it is not hard to imagine that he was hyping his firm. |
Not if you are a mental defective desperate to believe everything they read that happens to be anti-Jones. No other reason to think so.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| 2. The existence of the exercise would provide cover for any suspicious activity leading up to the bombings. |
You have zero evidence of any suspicous activity.
|
Not what I, or anyone, claimed.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Joo, unless you can counter what I argue above your article is discredited |
.
You don't make the rules. |
I didn't make them, no. (You failed again)
All I see in your efforts to push this lame article, is that you are so desperate to believe anything that agrees with your world view, you fail to look at it critically, even when it's faults are spelled out for you.
You remind me of the worst kind of gullible and lazy conspiracy theorist. No wonder you hate them so much - you look at them and see yourself.
Precisely why your opinions are worth exactly zero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Ok, Joo, I'll take this slowly. I understand you have a logical handicap, and I'll try and work with your disability. |
Said the David Icky folower
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
1
[quote]Irrelevant. We're talking about the merits of your article.
| Quote: |
| What they fail to disprove is significant. The mistake they point out is inconsequential. If it was corrected, it would make no difference to the argument that: |
| Quote: |
Fact: Jones made an error of fact.
Opinion: (Joo wrote) "Jones is trying to give one impression and it was false. He was trying to imply that it was a huge drill with many people involved when in fact it was a war game in an office. "
Your opinion is not fact. |
what was Jones objective then?
[quote]
| Quote: |
1. A bombing scenario that
The man in charge of the operation says "precisely". It made the hair on his neck stand up. That indicates there was an improbable degree of "coincidence". |
Hyping his company. He did not get every target nor did he show the times.
| Quote: |
| You and your hit-piece article say "not precisely". I believe him. You are not a credible source, sorry. |
He had other stations then he claimed.
[
| Quote: |
| Not if you are a mental defective desperate to believe everything they read that happens to be anti-Jones. No other reason to think so. |
really why is there no other reason to think so?
He doesn't have an interest in showing that his firm was so on top of things?
[quote]
| Quote: |
| Not what I, or anyone, claimed. |
what does Jones say?
| Quote: |
| I didn't make them, no. (You failed again) |
Just cause you say so doesn't make it so.
| Quote: |
| All I see in your efforts to push this lame article, is that you are so desperate to believe anything that agrees with your world view, you fail to look at it critically, even when it's faults are spelled out for you. |
It is not a lame article .
It is not hard to imaging terror during the morning rush hour.
all the firm did was conduct a drill about terror during the rush hour.
It did not send agents all over the city .
There is no evidence of agents all over the city running cover as Jones implies.
| Quote: |
You remind me of the worst kind of gullible and lazy conspiracy theorist. No wonder you hate them so much - you look at them and see yourself. |
What is Icky the best kind of conspriacy theorist?
| Quote: |
| Precisely why your opinions are worth exactly zero. |
Worth more than those of a David Icky follower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the facts:
Jones said there was a huge drill involving a 1000 people . That was not the case. It was just war game in an office.
Why did he leave out that fact ? Because it would make things look different. The fact is that all that happened was there was a war game where London subways were bombed during rush hour. A war game that is run often. In the war game included targets that were not hit.
Q: Is there anything so amazing that a a crisis management company would have a game where the London subway was bombed by terrorists during run hour? Not really.
Let remember that you post what you do cause you David Icke supporter which makes you a follower of a cult. You and your kind are filth and vermin.
By the way tell us Deadman is the queen of England a reptile?
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Here are my facts
Jones said there was a huge drill involving a 1000 people . That was not the case. It was ... just a little war game ... in an office.
Why did i leave out this fact ? Because it would make things look different.
The fact is that all that happened was there was .... a war game that went wrong ... where London subways were bombed during rush hour. A war game that is run often.
It included targets that were not hit, but were supposed to be.
Let remember that you post what you do cause you David Icke supporter which makes you a follower of a cult. You and your kind are filth and vermin. |
1) Disinfo
2) Provocateur
The crowd roars its approval, such charm & persuasion, well-founded logic & integrity.
JOO WINS AGAIN !!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Igothisguitar = Nazi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| By the way tell us Deadman is the queen of England a reptile? |
While the jury's still out on this one, we all know who clearly is.
Satanist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| By the way tell us Deadman is the queen of England a reptile? |
While the jury's still out on this one, we all know who clearly is.
Satanist. |
You never read the Lord of the Rings.
Stupid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Here are the facts:
Jones said there was a huge drill involving a 1000 people . That was not the case. It was just war game in an office.
Why did he leave out that fact ? Because it would make things look different. The fact is that all that happened was there was a war game where London subways were bombed during rush hour. A war game that is run often. In the war game included targets that were not hit.
Q: Is there anything so amazing that a a crisis management company would have a game where the London subway was bombed by terrorists during run hour? Not really. |
That's more like it. A reasonable response, and I'll respond in kind:
You speculate that Jones left it out deliberately. So you have any evidence to support this? He may have been simply mistaken.
IF there was a simultaneous terror drill which had a target overlap which was significantly improbable, it is suspicious and should be investigated. How close was the coincidence, and who selected the targets, what was the nature of the drill, did it positively or adversely affect the response and management to the crisis, are questions that should be asked by the press or investigators.
Neither you or I know the facts, nor do Jones or the authors of your article, so our speculation is rather pointless.
While I do think some things seem suspicious, I don't support Jones' mouth-frothing on this one, because of lack of more evidence.
Your article is as equally mouth-frothing and evidence-poor as Jones'. I attacked it because you posted it without comment or qualification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"deadman"][
That's more like it. A reasonable response, and I'll respond in kind:
| Quote: |
You speculate that Jones left it out deliberately. So you have any evidence to support this? He may have been simply mistaken. |
IF he left it out intentionally he is a liar.
If it is the case that he is mistaken it is still the case that it was an office drill and not them sending agents to cover up a bombing.
| Quote: |
IF there was a simultaneous terror drill which had a target overlap which was significantly improbable, it is suspicious and should be investigated. How close was the coincidence, and who selected the targets, what was the nature of the drill, did it positively or adversely affect the response and management to the crisis, are questions that should be asked by the press or investigators. |
It is hard to believe that a company who specializes in crisis managment woud run a war game in which the major subways of London were bombed during rush hour?
That is what they do. In fact a Rush hour boming is one of the most likely terror attacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
