|
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 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Well convenient for you: this is not public knowledge (which at the same time means you don't know). She does have a massive amount of private property (as does the entire peerage), but her stake in the Bank of England (which is also connected into the American Federal Reserve bank) is not disclosed. There is no evidence that the monarchy has lost it's share after all these years, however, so it is safe to assume it's quite substantial (not to mention they print her face on the money  ). |
Why do the cases your kind make always rely on unsubstantiated suppositions about what happens behind closed doors? "You don't know what her stake in the Bank of England is, so it must be huge." "You don't know what Carter's advisors talked about behind closed doors, so any opposition must be a facade and really they're all David Rockefeller's puppets." "You don't know what's in the health care bill, so there's surely pro-eugenics death pannels involved."
Tiresome. |
It's called evidence (much of it overwhelming, like in the case of Carter and the Trilateral Commission). Why do you always ignore what's staring you right in the face and spin it just so you can feel good about yourself? Tiresome.
It's not like I "make all this stuff up" - I post real evidence, and when it gets to the point one can only speculate (like who owns what shares of the Fed or the BoE, which is undisclosed info, though there is evidence dating back to the beginning), I make it clear. Feel free to be skeptical if you want, but just because I can't flash the actual BoE account documents of the queen in front of your eyes doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that you're right. The very fact that this info is kept private is proof that they're hiding something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Triban
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Well convenient for you: this is not public knowledge (which at the same time means you don't know). She does have a massive amount of private property (as does the entire peerage), but her stake in the Bank of England (which is also connected into the American Federal Reserve bank) is not disclosed. There is no evidence that the monarchy has lost it's share after all these years, however, so it is safe to assume it's quite substantial (not to mention they print her face on the money ). |
Why do the cases your kind make always rely on unsubstantiated suppositions about what happens behind closed doors? "You don't know what her stake in the Bank of England is, so it must be huge." "You don't know what Carter's advisors talked about behind closed doors, so any opposition must be a facade and really they're all David Rockefeller's puppets." "You don't know what's in the health care bill, so there's surely pro-eugenics death pannels involved."
Tiresome. |
It's called evidence (much of it overwhelming, like in the case of Carter and the Trilateral Commission). Why do you always ignore what's staring you right in the face and spin it just so you can feel good about yourself? Tiresome.
It's not like I "make all this stuff up" - I post real evidence, and when it gets to the point one can only speculate (like who owns what shares of the Fed or the BoE, which is undisclosed info, though there is evidence dating back to the beginning), I make it clear. Feel free to be skeptical if you want, but just because I can't flash the actual BoE account documents of the queen in front of your eyes doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that you're right. The very fact that this info is kept private is proof that they're hiding something. |
Don't worry visitorq, I'm having the same rough time trying to educate my ACTUAL FRIENDS back in the USA. Everyone has their blinders on because they don't want to believe their trust/hope has been shat on since they've been born. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Well convenient for you: this is not public knowledge (which at the same time means you don't know). She does have a massive amount of private property (as does the entire peerage), but her stake in the Bank of England (which is also connected into the American Federal Reserve bank) is not disclosed. There is no evidence that the monarchy has lost it's share after all these years, however, so it is safe to assume it's quite substantial (not to mention they print her face on the money ). |
Why do the cases your kind make always rely on unsubstantiated suppositions about what happens behind closed doors? "You don't know what her stake in the Bank of England is, so it must be huge." "You don't know what Carter's advisors talked about behind closed doors, so any opposition must be a facade and really they're all David Rockefeller's puppets." "You don't know what's in the health care bill, so there's surely pro-eugenics death pannels involved."
Tiresome. |
It's called evidence |
There you go misusing words again. Saying "You don't know what happens behind closed doors, so blah blah blah," isn't evidence. In fact, it's the exact opposite of evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Well convenient for you: this is not public knowledge (which at the same time means you don't know). She does have a massive amount of private property (as does the entire peerage), but her stake in the Bank of England (which is also connected into the American Federal Reserve bank) is not disclosed. There is no evidence that the monarchy has lost it's share after all these years, however, so it is safe to assume it's quite substantial (not to mention they print her face on the money ). |
Why do the cases your kind make always rely on unsubstantiated suppositions about what happens behind closed doors? "You don't know what her stake in the Bank of England is, so it must be huge." "You don't know what Carter's advisors talked about behind closed doors, so any opposition must be a facade and really they're all David Rockefeller's puppets." "You don't know what's in the health care bill, so there's surely pro-eugenics death pannels involved."
Tiresome. |
It's called evidence |
There you go misusing words again. Saying "You don't know what happens behind closed doors, so blah blah blah," isn't evidence. In fact, it's the exact opposite of evidence. |
There you go using strawmen tactics again (so predictable by now). OBVIOUSLY what goes on behind closed doors is a secret. The evidence is the many dots which, when connected, give a pretty clear picture of what's going on.
When building a jigsaw puzzle you don't need to put every single little part into place (which is what you demand) to see the picture. The evidence I provide (like showing the role of David Rockefeller and the private Trilateral Commission at the highest levels of government) is very compelling. It's easy to fill in the blanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Taken from Chapter 18 - "All the Queen�s forces and all the Queen�s men" of David Icke's The Biggest Secret
"No-one knows what the Windsors really own because it is forbidden for Parliament even to discuss the fact that the Queen keeps her private wealth a secret. Such secrecy is vital to prevent outrage by her �subjects� and to allow her to use her privilege for insider trading, a practice which is illegal. Insider trading is to be in a position to hear privileged information which could be used to make a financial killing and then to use that knowledge to do just that.
The Queen, with her colossal portfolio of global investments, is in the perfect position to make unlimited profits. She is constantly kept informed, via meetings with prime ministers, ministers, officials, British Intelligence and other sources, of the secret happenings in the world. She knows through these channels and others, where the best and worst investments are going to be and through her secret network she can ensure that the most effective financial use is made of that information. It was exposed in 1977 that the Bank of England, the creation of the Black Nobility, had established a company called the Bank of England Nominees Ltd (BOEN), to hide the Queen�s investments.
The Windsor line has had a particularly profitable relationship with the City of London since the reign of Edward VII, the son of Queen Victoria. Edward�s leading financial advisor was Ernest Cassel, the Black Nobility banker. Cassel�s daughter and heiress, Edwina, would marry Lord Louis Mountbatten, the foremost influence on both Prince Philip and Prince Charles. Edward VII, a leading Freemason, was also close to the Rothschilds, the Sassoons (an offshoot of the Rothschild bloodline), and the American Payseur-Rothschild clones, Morgan and Harriman. Other financial names with long royal associations are Barings and Morgan Grenfell.
The private financial advisor to George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth, was Sir Edward Peacock of Barings Bank and the Bank of England. The King awarded Peacock a Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, so the advice was obviously very profitable. George VI also made Lord Cromer his Lord Chamberlain, the highest rank in the Royal Household. Cromer was at one time managing director of Barings.
Researchers like Philip Beresford, the author of The Book Of The British Rich, say that Queen Elizabeth invests in the major corporations like Rio Tinto (formerly Rio Tinto Zinc or RTZ), Royal Dutch Shell, ICI and General Electric. This makes sense because these are all pillars of the Black Nobility. The Queen appears to have substantial investments in Rio Tinto, the biggest mining company in the world." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Well convenient for you: this is not public knowledge (which at the same time means you don't know). She does have a massive amount of private property (as does the entire peerage), but her stake in the Bank of England (which is also connected into the American Federal Reserve bank) is not disclosed. There is no evidence that the monarchy has lost it's share after all these years, however, so it is safe to assume it's quite substantial (not to mention they print her face on the money ). |
Why do the cases your kind make always rely on unsubstantiated suppositions about what happens behind closed doors? "You don't know what her stake in the Bank of England is, so it must be huge." "You don't know what Carter's advisors talked about behind closed doors, so any opposition must be a facade and really they're all David Rockefeller's puppets." "You don't know what's in the health care bill, so there's surely pro-eugenics death pannels involved."
Tiresome. |
It's called evidence |
There you go misusing words again. Saying "You don't know what happens behind closed doors, so blah blah blah," isn't evidence. In fact, it's the exact opposite of evidence. |
There you go using strawmen tactics again (so predictable by now). |
Do you understand what a straw man is? It's not a straw man if it's something your opponent actually said, and I've got a quote in which you said it.
As an aside, your interpretation of the evidence at hand is not evidence in and of itself, and that's what "connecting the dots" is: an interpretation. The reason you consider it so easy to "fill in the blanks" is because you've all ready decided what the the puzzle looks like, so no matter what, you are going to fill in the blanks with, "David Rockefeller's trying to control the world and inflict eugenics upon us all." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Well convenient for you: this is not public knowledge (which at the same time means you don't know). She does have a massive amount of private property (as does the entire peerage), but her stake in the Bank of England (which is also connected into the American Federal Reserve bank) is not disclosed. There is no evidence that the monarchy has lost it's share after all these years, however, so it is safe to assume it's quite substantial (not to mention they print her face on the money ). |
Why do the cases your kind make always rely on unsubstantiated suppositions about what happens behind closed doors? "You don't know what her stake in the Bank of England is, so it must be huge." "You don't know what Carter's advisors talked about behind closed doors, so any opposition must be a facade and really they're all David Rockefeller's puppets." "You don't know what's in the health care bill, so there's surely pro-eugenics death pannels involved."
Tiresome. |
It's called evidence |
There you go misusing words again. Saying "You don't know what happens behind closed doors, so blah blah blah," isn't evidence. In fact, it's the exact opposite of evidence. |
There you go using strawmen tactics again (so predictable by now). |
Do you understand what a straw man is? It's not a straw man if it's something your opponent actually said, and I've got a quote in which you said it. |
"You don't know what happens behind closed doors, so blah blah blah"?
Fox, if you are claiming I said the above quote, then you are a liar plain and simple. Just admit your strawman for what it was.
| Quote: |
| As an aside, your interpretation of the evidence at hand is not evidence in and of itself, and that's what "connecting the dots" is: an interpretation. The reason you consider it so easy to "fill in the blanks" is because you've all ready decided what the the puzzle looks like, so no matter what, you are going to fill in the blanks with, "David Rockefeller's trying to control the world and inflict eugenics upon us all." |
Just another of your pitiful logical fallacies - so easy to take apart, yet I wonder why I even waste my time.
I never claimed that my "interpretation" is evidence. I provide actual evidence, and then interpret it. My interpretation is based on the evidence I provide.
You on the other hand, provide nothing. Just sophistry and semantics to distract away from the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Nationalising the Bank of England in 1946, which might seem at first sight to be a far reaching measure, made little difference in practice.
Yet, the state did acquire all the shares in the Bank of England -- they now belong to the Treasury and are held in trust by the Treasury Solicitor.
However, the government had no money to pay for the shares, so instead of receiving money for their shares, the shareholders were issued with government stocks. Although the state now received the operating profits of the bank, this was offset by the fact that the government now had to pay interest on the new stocks it had issued to pay for the shares.
However, it is much more significant to note that whilst the Bank of England is now state-owned the fact is that our money supply is once again almost entirely in private hands, with 97% of it being in the form of interest bearing loans of one sort or another, created by private commercial banks.
Indeed this is now where the real power resides -- with commercial banking."
http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/boe1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
"You don't know what happens behind closed doors, so blah blah blah"?
Fox, if you are claiming I said the above quote, then you are a liar plain and simple. Just admit your strawman for what it was. |
Are you really too obtuse to see that the first quote in the quote nest of your last post was of that form? No, I don't think so. Rather, you're a disingenous individual who will assert anything and deny anything so long as the end result is David Rockefeller controlling the world and forcing eugenics on us appearing to be plausible.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As an aside, your interpretation of the evidence at hand is not evidence in and of itself, and that's what "connecting the dots" is: an interpretation. The reason you consider it so easy to "fill in the blanks" is because you've all ready decided what the the puzzle looks like, so no matter what, you are going to fill in the blanks with, "David Rockefeller's trying to control the world and inflict eugenics upon us all." |
Just another of your pitiful logical fallacies - so easy to take apart, yet I wonder why I even waste my time. |
I think a lot of us wonder why you waste your time. 
| visitorq wrote: |
| I never claimed that my "interpretation" is evidence. I provide actual evidence, and then interpret it. My interpretation is based on the evidence I provide. |
And then, you claim your interpretation is proof. For example, you point out that several of Carter's advisors are associated with David Rockefeller. You point out that we can't possibly know everything they said behind closed doors. You then conclude that -- despite the fact that Carter openly disagreed with them and they at times disagreed each other -- that any visible disagreement is planned opposition. Based on this interpretation, you declare that Carter has been proven to be their puppet.
You either are doing exactly what I describe, or you don't even understand what proof is. Maybe the latter is true; your grasp of vocabulary has been proven to be limited after all, and it took quite a while to even instruct you on the definition of a conspiracy theorist. However, I believe you're not that deficient when it comes to the English language, and rather, you're just being disingenous.
Gullible people like yourself who far too easily jump to anti-governmental conclusions are the "useful idiots" which help groups like the Insurance Industry thrive and prosper. You're so hyped up on your little conspiracy theories that you play right into their hands, railing against the government by default. Congratulations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
"You don't know what happens behind closed doors, so blah blah blah"?
Fox, if you are claiming I said the above quote, then you are a liar plain and simple. Just admit your strawman for what it was. |
Are you really too obtuse to see that the first quote in the quote nest of your last post was of that form? No, I don't think so. Rather, you're a disingenous individual who will assert anything and deny anything so long as the end result is David Rockefeller controlling the world and forcing eugenics on us appearing to be plausible. |
Now this is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it. GO BACK AND READ THE "QUOTE NEST". You will see that I said NO SUCH THING. You made a strawman, plain and simple.
Also, the latter half of your quote above is yet another strawman. You're saying I have an "agenda" to connect everything to David Rockefeller, when I don't. It just so happens that David Rockefeller is connected to most of these things (as I showed with the Trilateral Commission, even after you scoffed at the notion). This has nothing to do with me - the evidence speaks for itself.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As an aside, your interpretation of the evidence at hand is not evidence in and of itself, and that's what "connecting the dots" is: an interpretation. The reason you consider it so easy to "fill in the blanks" is because you've all ready decided what the the puzzle looks like, so no matter what, you are going to fill in the blanks with, "David Rockefeller's trying to control the world and inflict eugenics upon us all." |
Just another of your pitiful logical fallacies - so easy to take apart, yet I wonder why I even waste my time. |
I think a lot of us wonder why you waste your time. |
There you go pretending to speak for other people again. Since you speak only for yourself, I'll just assume you're referring to any socks you have on here.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| I never claimed that my "interpretation" is evidence. I provide actual evidence, and then interpret it. My interpretation is based on the evidence I provide. |
And then, you claim your interpretation is proof. |
Strawman. I never claimed this.
| Quote: |
| For example, you point out that several of Carter's advisors are associated with David Rockefeller. You point out that we can't possibly know everything they said behind closed doors. You then conclude that -- despite the fact that Carter openly disagreed with them and they at times disagreed each other -- that any visible disagreement is planned opposition. Based on this interpretation, you declare that Carter has been proven to be their puppet. |
You're just plain lying. First, you never showed that Carter "openly disagreed" with them. You didn't - go back and check it. Second, I'm not as naive as you to believe the mere words of politicians. I look at their actions, and the end results they achieve. I showed how Carter's actions all benefited the Trilateralist agenda, I cited many examples - including the involvement of the World Bank (who had a Trilateralist president running it).
Anyway, the mere fact that our president was heavily involved in a secretive, extremely elitist (not to mention undemocratic) organization that was created and funded by the most powerful banker in America is enough to prove my point. No amount of your pro-government spin and sophistry can downplay this unbelievable fact.
| Quote: |
| You either are doing exactly what I describe, or you don't even understand what proof is. Maybe the latter is true; your grasp of vocabulary has been proven to be limited after all, and it took quite a while to even instruct you on the definition of a conspiracy theorist. However, I believe you're not that deficient when it comes to the English language, and rather, you're just being disingenous. |
Whatever you say Mr. Beck. All you can do is spin, and spin some more. Don't you understand that I'm immune to your BS? You can't fool me with semantics.
If you want to debate me - then try citing some counter-evidence. You rarely cite anything - you just conjure up obvious strawmen, play with words, and obfuscate the issues. You've pretty much got nothing.
| Quote: |
| Gullible people like yourself who far too easily jump to anti-governmental conclusions are the "useful idiots" which help groups like the Insurance Industry thrive and prosper. You're so hyped up on your little conspiracy theories that you play right into their hands, railing against the government by default. Congratulations. |
Most ironic post of the year. The admittedly un-American, anti-Constitutionalist, pro-government, pro-tyranny Glen Beck wannabe is accusing me of playing into the hands of the corporatocracy...
The only thing that allowed the Insurance Industry cartel to thrive and prosper in the first place was the fascist-socialist government that you love so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koharski
Mod Team
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stay on subject. The personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated any longer on this forum. Some names are gonna start disappearing soon if things do not change. It seems to be the same posters on every thread crossing the lines of debate. It ends now, or the herd will be thinned.
Koharski |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sluggle
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Location: suwon
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not here to add my stream to the semantics pissing contest...
But I have a question. I agree that if the healthcare market were completely free, it would not focus on preventive care. Sick people = $$$.
However, wouldn't the insurance companies be the ones promoting preventive care since they are the ones footing the costs? I know there are programs out there now that, for example, give you discounts if you own a gym membership.
Of course, I think we need to stop the pre-existing condition bullshit that goes on. 62% of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills and 78% of those bankruptcies HAD INSURANCE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is he really quoting David Icke and expecting to be taken seriously...?
Surely, I ate some strange mushroom last night and am imagining this...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Korarski - you have to name names, otherwise we don't know who you're talking about (and don't know if to shut up if it's us)! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sluggle wrote: |
Not here to add my stream to the semantics pissing contest...
But I have a question. I agree that if the healthcare market were completely free, it would not focus on preventive care. Sick people = $$$.
However, wouldn't the insurance companies be the ones promoting preventive care since they are the ones footing the costs? I know there are programs out there now that, for example, give you discounts if you own a gym membership.
Of course, I think we need to stop the pre-existing condition bullshit that goes on. 62% of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills and 78% of those bankruptcies HAD INSURANCE! |
If the health care market were completely free:
First, the cost of health care would be less than half of what it is today. This has to do with the government regulation of providers, mandating and preventing treatments and procedures, etc. It is well documented and reported by practicing physicians nationwide.
Health care would be more widely available and advancements would come quicker.
These things have to do with delivery and not who pays.
Second, Insurance companies would offer policies that the consumer wants. A large segment of individuals would prefer to only pay the minimal costs involved in covering major medical. These policies are not legal today, thanks to the socialists.
All insurance rates would fall by half just by deregulating the providers.
But, the cost of major medical only policies would be less than 10% of today's insurance. Most of the cost of insurance comes from coverage for health maintenance visits, minor injuries, minor illnesses, and handholding visits for those with no health issues at all. People who want these kinds of coverages should have to pay the higher rates that would ensue if the reasonable members of the human population were allowed to buy major medical only policies.
Third, it is absolutely correct that Insurance Companies would and do promote healthy lifestyles and health maintenance to reduce long-term illness. They also work to reduce accidents and promote safety.
The best way to promote these things is by giving lower rates to groups that live healthier lifestyles. Healthy individuals will live longer, cost less to insure, demand fewer health resources and should pay less. Being healthy is a rational choice.
Another way to promote healthy lifestyles is to invest in health promoting advertising that encourages cultural change toward a healthier society. Insurance companies have an interest in such advertising. Of course, this requires that free speech not be curtailed.
Direct investment in health clubs and other facilities can also promote long term health. This is more problematic as it involves entering into another kind of business and requires a different kind of management. It is generally better that insurance companies not do these things directly, but encourage these kinds of facilities for their own employees and possibly policy holders and thereby promote other businesses to do the same.
Finally, the reason that health insurance policies are not portable nor guaranteed for life is the income tax*. State regulation of providers which prevents cross border transfer of insurers also prevents portability.
The role of the income tax on health care has been proven and documented absolutely. There is no debate. The socialists do not want to give up the power and pelf that comes from this evil tax and since they really don't give a damn about the people they continue.
We need to deregulate insurers to allow 50 state coverage. This would allow individuals to maintain their policies when moving from state to state.
We must repeal the income tax* to allow portability and to allow "whole life" health insurance. With these reforms, insurance would be available and non cancellable from before birth until retirement, old age and death. The cost would be less than 10% of today's cost. The people would be free to choose their coverages.
The Fascist-Socialists really want to take over health care. Such evil national plans would reduce quality, availability and eventually require rationing where procedures are simply not available for anyone. Total rationing.
The Fascist-Socialist Democrats don't care about the people. They don't want better health care. They want more power. They want to control trillions of dollars more in wealth and be able to funnel a large chunk to themselves, their friends and families.
Socialism is always evil.
Socialism kills.
Socialism always fails. |
|
| 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
