AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-08-04, 10:06   Link #29841
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
what is your alternative? Government run Housing hasn't exactly prove to be paradise either.
I'm not proposing an alternative. Given that the overwhelming majority of society is based around the idea of private land ownership, implementing an alternative would also be problematic.

The point of bringing this up was not to say that we should get rid of landlords. It was generated in response to the idea that the working poor are deserving of criticism for demanding higher wages. I chose a group of people who aren't poor, yet who siphon money from society while providing little to no value in return, and asked the group why they don't receive criticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I think you're just moving the goalpost as you clarify your position. At first it was all landlords, now it's people who inherited property from their family, in certain areas of the country with a skewed market, that don't renovate when needed... etc.
I enjoy these discussions because it helps to clarify my position and thoughts, but in those cases I wasn't shifting anything. Many are bringing up landlords as the person who is managing the property, or the person who bought the property and erected the building. I would agree - to a point - that calling such people "parasites"is unfitting. Yet I would also point out that in the vast majority of cases the buildings were built long ago and the only "investment" occurs as one person or group sells the property to another. I've been trying to bring up different scenarios in an effort to get people away from what seems to be a particular notion about what a landlord is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I really don't complain about people on welfare.
Those comments weren't directed at you, but at kyp275. To be fair, he didn't complain about welfare recipients. I pre-empted it, but he didn't go there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Further, your hypothetical story just doesn't mesh with what I've seen in reality.
It meshes with what I've seen in reality. You and I both have nothing more than anecdotal stories to offer in this regard, though, which ultimately proves nothing more than that both instances exist. But let me try to tie it all together with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Rents are definitely determined by their market (based on good ole' supply and demand).
I don't disagree that "supply and demand" comes into play, but look at the bigger picture (particularly why I started into this whole line of discussion in response to kyp275). What makes a particular location desirable? Usually there are two factors: how nice it is, and convenience. Convenience specifically relates to proximity to work. The middle class and higher can afford to live farther from their jobs, but the working poor have much less flexibility. That's strike one against the poor (and this is more directed at kyp275's lack of sympathy for their demands for higher wages). The second issue is what I mentioned before: there is a huge potential for unequal bargaining power between the tenant and the landlord. This balance is likely to be healthy in places with low population densities, but it is skewed in favor of the landlord in places with higher population densities. Places with high population densities - urban centers - tend to be places with the most job opportunities. There's a second strike against the poor.

Most of that line of argument wasn't what you were responding to, though. You were brought into the conversation over the calling out of landlords as parasites. While I am not opposed to the idea that people would receive compensation for going through the effort to secure a site and erect a structure for others to live in, I view what happens after as parasitism. If the property owner is not functioning as the property manager, then what more is he (or she) than another outstretched hand demanding money from people who must live somewhere and end up on his or her plot of land? What service is being provided?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Uh, was he supposed to spend his money to purchase the property for you to live on for free?
Would the land not have existed before he purchased it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Living wherever you want is not a right, it's something you have to earn. Live with parents, get some roommates if you have to, housing is not exempt from the "live within one's means" rule.
"Living wherever you want" is not the issue. See what I wrote above regarding job location, supply and demand for housing prices, and the negotiating power of renters and landlords.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 10:21   Link #29842
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
That's what amazes me the most, they are one of the most easily replaced workforce in existence, with little to no job-related skills required.
True, I guess the unions are really turning up the thumbscrews on the fast food chains to set an example. Probably related to the right-to-work-legislation issues in Michigan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
About "simply raising the wages of all low-end workers in big companies":

I hope you are not serious about that... You should know that that would essentially annihilate every small company nearby because the smaller companies would not be able to keep up with the wages and every worker would leave for the bigger one. That is why in Germany there are certain "market regulations" and because of those you cannot simply raise or lower wages as you see fit.
The collective bargaining agreements by sector in Germany have been really beneficial for employment relations but they are not easy to copy elsewhere.
Bri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 10:23   Link #29843
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Most of that line of argument wasn't what you were responding to, though. You were brought into the conversation over the calling out of landlords as parasites. While I am not opposed to the idea that people would receive compensation for going through the effort to secure a site and erect a structure for others to live in, I view what happens after as parasitism. If the property owner is not functioning as the property manager, then what more is he (or she) than another outstretched hand demanding money from people who must live somewhere and end up on his or her plot of land? What service is being provided?
He's bought the building, and pays for its management, upkeep, taxes... And he has to do all that whether he has tenants or not.

Sure, when everything's smooth sailing, they make more money than they spend for little to no effort. But when it isn't, they may well lose money. Holding the two possibilities in balance is what's capitalism is about.

Construction isn't a charity, it's an investment. If it stops being a way to make money, it stops happening. And whether one pays for the construction directly, or buys the building years later from the one who did, what does it change? The owner still had to spend money to acquire a building.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 10:35   Link #29844
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
If the property owner is not functioning as the property manager, then what more is he (or she) than another outstretched hand demanding money from people who must live somewhere and end up on his or her plot of land? What service is being provided?
It's an investment. It's a risk to own property. Your money is tied up in the ownership stake of the building. You aren't guaranteed to profit and you have legal liability for any number of things that could occur on the property. If you don't manage the property, then you are paying someone to do that, too. Even if you have a great property manager, you will still need to have some degree of oversight into the operations, lest the venture become entirely unprofitable.

This is why I think your gripe is more with capitalism itself and private land ownership. The "service" is the fact that they own and rent the land and there are intrinsic responsibilities and risks associated with such ownership. You don't just stumble into property ownership and reap all these benefits. You are making an investment and the money you put into it is at risk when you do so. The risk, the tying up of money, that isn't restricted to the initial purchase as you seem to be suggesting... they remain throughout the life of your ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Would the land not have existed before he purchased it?
This question serves as another example of why I see your problem as a fundamental dislike of private land ownership.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 11:37   Link #29845
ArchmageXin
Master of Coin
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
This thread make me lol. But to be honest, in the last years I had to struggle and fight my way from doing Internship at $12 an hour all the way to the Senior Accountant at a major wall street firm while freelancing for a bunch of smaller firms.

I can tell you you will be surprised how many companies, especially mid (200 employee or less) are not making money, barely surviving because guess what? Their employees aren't even making enough to enjoy their company's products.

Everything in capitalism depend on consumption (making sales) and reducing costs. If one constantly reduce the value of their workers, those workers (or laid off) will make less consumption. A CEO can't eat 50 worker worth of oranges a year, no matter how high his salary is. A grocer I do the books for in exchange for free picks from his stock is fretting his food aren't being sold fast enough, because the local economy is dying a slow death and everyone is cutting back.

So once this vicious circle goes on long enough, the economic impact will be felt even for the mid managers and then the wealthy. Those countries that enjoy an outsourced economy (SK, China) will soon join Japan in the lost lands when their workers are outsourced to Africa, or replaced by robots completely.
__________________
ArchmageXin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 11:44   Link #29846
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
ROK is already there with Japan. Of course, PRC and ROC are crashing even harder nowadays.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 12:33   Link #29847
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchmageXin View Post
This thread make me lol. But to be honest, in the last years I had to struggle and fight my way from doing Internship at $12 an hour all the way to the Senior Accountant at a major wall street firm while freelancing for a bunch of smaller firms.

I can tell you you will be surprised how many companies, especially mid (200 employee or less) are not making money, barely surviving because guess what? Their employees aren't even making enough to enjoy their company's products.

Everything in capitalism depend on consumption (making sales) and reducing costs. If one constantly reduce the value of their workers, those workers (or laid off) will make less consumption. A CEO can't eat 50 worker worth of oranges a year, no matter how high his salary is. A grocer I do the books for in exchange for free picks from his stock is fretting his food aren't being sold fast enough, because the local economy is dying a slow death and everyone is cutting back.

So once this vicious circle goes on long enough, the economic impact will be felt even for the mid managers and then the wealthy. Those countries that enjoy an outsourced economy (SK, China) will soon join Japan in the lost lands when their workers are outsourced to Africa, or replaced by robots completely.
Yeah. This is a problem that in many ways we're having to deal with. Real wages for workers have fallen, so consumer spending goes down. So to compensate...companies law off workers and cut off hours. It's one of those things where it's rational when one company does it, but it becomes economically bad when everybody does it. Because to a company, it's all about acquiring as much cash infusion. When large scale level economies work because of the distribution and movement of money through the system.




Imagine a setup where every company managed to replace the entirety of its work force with robots, yet still was providing services/goods under the assumption that there were still consumers with money left.
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 12:45   Link #29848
Dextro
He Without a Title
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Dextro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
Imagine a setup where every company managed to replace the entirety of its work force with robots, yet still was providing services/goods under the assumption that there were still consumers with money left.
The problem is that we're actually heading there. What happens when you manage to automate virtually every step in an assembly line? When you can replace every office worker with some kind of automated software? When you can get 3D animation to replace even real actors? When you can replace a doctor with an automated tool that diagnoses and provides treatment?

I could go on and on and every example I could think of is actually happening today.

We're heading to a future where we may just turn ourselves obsolete and then what? How does capitalism itself, the concept of rewarding people with money for they work, continues to function when no-one needs to actually work any more?

We're at the beginning of a time where humanity itself may just need to re-evaluate the basic trading system that has served us for millennia.
__________________

Dextro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 12:50   Link #29849
Dhomochevsky
temporary safeguard
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 33
Real estate seems to attract some weird moralist views from people who otherwise have no qualms with capitalism.

There is some ongoing quarrel in Germany, where some entities build luxury appartments into so called "in-scene-quarters". These are the hippest and most promising places to live in cities and property prices are skyrocketing there, mind you.
So they get called 'evil' because 'poor people can't pay those rents! how are they supposed to live there now'?
Those companies must have payed fortunes to get a hold of the land. Of course they will build high value objects on them. And why would anyone have a right to live in the best quarters, in newly built appartments, for almost no cost?
It makes no sense. But that's what these complainers seem to believe.

If it was about anything else than real estate, they would get it. But somehow that's different.
Dhomochevsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 12:56   Link #29850
Dhomochevsky
temporary safeguard
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dextro View Post
The problem is that we're actually heading there. What happens when you manage to automate virtually every step in an assembly line? When you can replace every office worker with some kind of automated software? When you can get 3D animation to replace even real actors? When you can replace a doctor with an automated tool that diagnoses and provides treatment?

I could go on and on and every example I could think of is actually happening today.

We're heading to a future where we may just turn ourselves obsolete and then what? How does capitalism itself, the concept of rewarding people with money for they work, continues to function when no-one needs to actually work any more?

We're at the beginning of a time where humanity itself may just need to re-evaluate the basic trading system that has served us for millennia.
Then those people can finally do something else.
Do you understand that the word computer comes from actual guys sitting at a desk all workday, computing stuff?
And not in a way a mathematician would work on a problem.
No, just adding numbers, because someone has to do it.

Are we sad, these jobs do not exist anymore? Where are all the jobless computers today?

We will never be 'obsolete', we will become more free. Free to do things we couldn't do before, because we were locked in some mundane activity.
Who wants to work at an assembly line? No one.
Maybe that actor will control a whole bunch of virtual characters instead and make their own movie?
That doctor can use his time to attend to difficult cases and leave the routine work to the robots. Or a doctor will be someone that trains robots? Finally good treatment for everyone, even the poor? yay.
Office workers already got a huge boost from the introduction of personal computers. There are still office workers, but they are more empowered now.

This has happened for over a hundred years now, so I'll assume the current system is well prepared for it.

Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2013-08-04 at 13:06.
Dhomochevsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 13:10   Link #29851
Dextro
He Without a Title
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Dextro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
Then those people can finally do something else.
Do you understand that the word computer comes from actual guys sitting at a desk all workday, computing stuff?
And not in a way a mathematician would work on a problem.
No, just adding numbers, because someone has to do it.

Are we sad, these jobs do not exist anymore? Where are all the jobless computers today?

We will never be 'obsolete', we will become more free. Free to do things we couldn't do before, because we were locked in some mundane activity.
Who wants to work at an assembly line? No one.
Maybe that actor will control a whole bunch of virtual characters instead and make their own movie?
That doctor can use his time to attend to difficult cases and leave the routine work to the robots. Or a doctor will be someone that trains robots? Finally good treatment for everyone, even the poor? yay.
I don't disagree with you, I'm just not sure how capitalism would work in such a world. We're already feeling some effects of this shift, at least here in Europe: Manufacturing is shutting down and moving abroad, people end up without work and not everyone has the ability to get a better, more "high level" job simply because they don't have the money or the brains to train themselves for them.

We're reaching unbearable levels of unemployment precisely because we have so much stuff automated nowadays that we end up with people who aren't capable of doing anything that's needed anymore.

I get how you say that replacing humans with machines leaves people free to do something better, more high level, but that only works if we as a society are willing to put in the time and money needed to train those people and we clearly aren't doing it at the moment going by the insane student loans we see people take on these days.
__________________

Dextro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 13:24   Link #29852
Dhomochevsky
temporary safeguard
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 33
Unemployment was high and low in the past no matter the state of automation.

But with automation the money you do earn will buy you so much more.

It is not really about training either. A guy with bulldozer and a few days of training can do the job of a hundred men with showels. It just enables us to do so much more, for basicly the same cost in salaries (and a much higher cost in tools, but those are investments that can be written off with proper economics).
In effect, so much more gets done overall that even if you only participate a little bit, it will (should?) in fact get you more than anyone in the past could dream of as a common worker.

Automation is not the problem.

I'd say the inequality in distribution of the profits of automation is. It's hardly linear to the importance of the work done.
Dhomochevsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 13:33   Link #29853
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dextro View Post
We're heading to a future where we may just turn ourselves obsolete and then what? How does capitalism itself, the concept of rewarding people with money for they work, continues to function when no-one needs to actually work any more?

We're at the beginning of a time where humanity itself may just need to re-evaluate the basic trading system that has served us for millennia.
The issue is more fundamentally problematic than that. Because it's not just a matter that this isn't sustainable for people. It isn't sustainable for corporations either. What's the point in corporations making products/services for consumers that no longer have employment? For that matter, what's the point of a corporation even existing in such a situation?

High unemployment is likely going to go hand in hand with rampant corporate failures in the aftermath of increasing automation in society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
Then those people can finally do something else.
Yes, but what are they supposed to do that will also put food on the table? In a society where nearly all office/industrial/service jobs are automated? Maybe there'd be some creative stuff still needed (engineering/art), but whose to say that artificial intelligence couldn't do that as well? And it's not like everyone in a society can try to become designers or artists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
It is not really about training either. A guy with bulldozer and a few days of training can do the job of a hundred men with showels. It just enables us to do so much more, for basicly the same cost in salaries (and a much higher cost in tools, but those are investments that can be written off with proper economics).
The thing is though, when you replaced a hundred men with shovels with a bulldozer, those men could do other things. They could work at the factory that made bulldozers. They could work at the oil refineries that supplied bulldozers with gas. They could drive the trucks that delivered bulldozers from the factory. They could work in the factory that made trucks that moved bulldozers. Or any other kind of industrial job. When tools could replace manual labor, the demand for people to manufacture tools to replace manual labor went up.


The problem with automation today is that nobody is really sure what kind of new economically viable jobs will be generated by having 100% automated service/industry jobs.
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 13:34   Link #29854
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
I'd say the inequality in distribution of the profits of automation is.
Correct. Owners of capital receive more income than they can consume so they save it. Not enough profitable investment opportunities lead to excess savings from an economic point of view, in turn workers earn too little so there is a demand/consumption shortfall. Clear definition of economic inefficiency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
Yes, but what are they supposed to do that will also put food on the table? In a society where nearly all office/industrial/service jobs are automated? Maybe there'd be some creative stuff still needed (engineering/art), but whose to say that artificial intelligence couldn't do that as well? And it's not like everyone in a society can try to become designers or artists.
They get a replicator

Theoretically, in such a society all production including food is received by the people who own the machines who make it. They trade the produce for whatever services the other people can provide. Basically a 100% service economy.
Bri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 13:48   Link #29855
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
The problem with automation today is that nobody is really sure what kind of new economically viable jobs will be generated by having 100% automated service/industry jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Theoretically, in such a society all production including food is received by the people who own the machines who make it. They trade the produce for whatever services the other people can provide. Basically a 100% service economy.
I am not exactly sure of the answer, however, I think that it is time that we take time itself as a resource alongside money.

As what Bri had said, a service economy. In that case, who would be doing the research and development for the production side of the economy when nobody has experience in that?
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 13:49   Link #29856
ArchmageXin
Master of Coin
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Just to point out guys, as an Accountant, I can tell you I know my job will value less and less going forward because a machine can do 80% of my job now. It take three accountants to take care what used to take 30. I once remarked to my ex on this, and she said she is working on a project at IBM to have computer write their own codes.

It might be somewhat lolz to think about it now, but someday even comp sci people will replace themselves. After that, then what? Who need supply chain managers, high finance people, engineers or even scientists if machine can do their research more efficiently?

This also affect the gilded 1% people as well. As a person who work in High Speed Trading firm, most of our clients (I.E big monies traders, funds, wall street firms) are also becoming frustrated. 10 years ago, Mom and Pop traders and "average investors" used to float the market with massive volume. Now after the scandals and the economy crash, the volume is a quarter where its used to be, and half of that are bots doing high frequency duels against each other. (while Tele-com and artificial costs are strangling the market by eating smaller firms alive.)

Very soon, it is entirely possible Wall Street itself will be displaced by capitalism.

Then what?
__________________
ArchmageXin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 14:04   Link #29857
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
Then those people can finally do something else.
Do you understand that the word computer comes from actual guys sitting at a desk all workday, computing stuff?
And not in a way a mathematician would work on a problem.
No, just adding numbers, because someone has to do it.

Are we sad, these jobs do not exist anymore? Where are all the jobless computers today?

We will never be 'obsolete', we will become more free. Free to do things we couldn't do before, because we were locked in some mundane activity.
Even now, we still need people to make society work. To produce as much, as well as we can.

With robots everywhere? We're talking about a society where only the 1% most creative has real, useful jobs. Training robots or tackling problems they aren't smart enough to solve. Everything else? Robots.

And for the remaining 99%? Make-work and hobbies. We can't all be Stephen Hawking or GRR Martin. Or maybe we'll all prostitute ourselves to each other, because I imagine most people will prefer real flesh and blood to even the most realistic robot. Though I could be wrong there...

And of course, the next question, tied to the end of capitalism, is this: what happens when the rich, the robot owners, realize they don't need the poor? Not even to clean their robots? Do they tell us to starve? Do we storm their castles? Maybe start the Butlerian Jihad?


Or maybe we'll all live comfortable lives, supported by our robot slaves, writing fanfiction all day, for lack of a better thing to do.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 14:05   Link #29858
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
They get a replicator
Who gives them a replicator? And how do they convince the people who operate the robot mines to send them raw materials for their replicator, and convince the people who own the power utilities to send them the power needed to power their replicator?

For that matter. Why wouldn't the people who owned the mines/power plants not have their own, industrial sized replicators?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Theoretically, in such , society all production including food is received by the people who own the machines who make it. They trade the produce for whatever services the other people can provide. Basically a 100% service economy.
But what services could they provide to somebody with a replicator, who could just manufacture robot servants/workers for himself?
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 14:05   Link #29859
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky View Post
we will become more free. Free to do things we couldn't do before, because we were locked in some mundane activity.
Who wants to work at an assembly line? No one.
"More free", but also more uncertainty in getting paid.

We can also become more free if everyone's got free food and housing, except every government that attempted it on a scale larger than a small village has failed miserably.
maplehurry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 14:09   Link #29860
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by maplehurry View Post
"More free", but also more uncertainty in getting paid.

We can also become more free if everyone's got free food and housing, except every government that attempted it on a scale larger than a small village has failed miserably.
Maybe because they didn't have smart enough robots.

Right now, every meal we eat was made with somebody's sweat. Someone somewhere always pay.

But if it could all be done by robots? Well, someone would have to design them first, and build the first few to build the rest, but ultimately we'd get to a point where a handful of guys worked hard for a bit and fed everyone, forever. Then what?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.