A reply to gmat's last comment - Page 2

phreenet · 03-19-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

To state (or advance) that France is incapable of any type of significant defense is grossly exagerated, and only serves to demonstrate/express animosity over its position.

I think Kuwait or Canada could take France out if they had too. French tanks don't come with 5 reverse gears for nothing..

gmat · 03-19-2003, 11:16 AM

"freedom isn't exactly a concern I see for the French people" -> YOU are going to retire that, Winewood. And now. The last people who said that about French were the Nazis. This kind of statement goes over the limits of acceptable.

"Using the most accurate predictor of the future.. which is the past."
THIS is the exact thinking what made France lose WWII so fast. And that loss you overstated all over the forums.
Now.
Without the French the US would be a UK colony.
Without the French thinkers the US would be a kingdom, or some kind of dictature.
We can go far like that.
Using a *completely different* situation as a point of reference is ludicrous. WWII as about a rising superpower taking everyone around by speed. The war in Europe was about *freeing* Europe from the Nazis.
In Iraq, it's about taking over oil resources. I don't see any element of comparison.
Besides, after all the insults you (and others) dumped on the French, and the "we're the rulers of the world so STFU" attitude, are you still asking yourself why there's some kind of anti-american feeling floating around?

Finally your statements about French army have no relation with the problem at hand. If France supported war, we would have sent what we had, and money, etc. And the veto at the UN has *nothing* to do with the size of our guns. Hopefully diplomacy doesn't work like that.

(edit) Hey BB2K you got it all in 2 points

nice

winewood · 03-19-2003, 11:22 AM

I would argue the point that the inspectors cant do their job without cooperation, and they are not getting the cooperation as intailed by previous resolutions. However that is the million dollar question isnt it?
I agree.. perhaps a break from this topic may be in line. I definitely don't disrespect ANYONE for having their own opinons. Facts are definitely hard to come by these days, as everyone has an agenda. Please take this comment as, I respect everyones knowledge here in hardware, AND political leanings as everyone will be getting completely different messages and infromation depending on whose media they listen to. Lets just hold out and pray that the best thing will result as to the actions we cannot control. Peace!

oh.. this breaking news just in..

Quote:

"freedom isn't exactly a concern I see for the French people" -> YOU are going to retire that, Winewood. And now. The last people who said that about French were the Nazis. This kind of statement goes over the limits of acceptable.

Im sorry, that is my opinion. I have it. You wont change it. I cant demand that you think my version of it, so now that the demands are on the table. I ask that you live with the fact that I think differently. This is a forum. We don't dictate how people think. We can try. But I respect your opinon to be different.

gmat · 03-19-2003, 11:24 AM

I'm just waiting for excuses for the Nazi statement.

BillA · 03-19-2003, 11:25 AM

how about another slant on this issue

the 'problem' is the potential nexus between WMD and terrorism
or
between those who may supply such and those who may use such

there was a direct link between 9/11 and the groups in Afghanistan,
the US asked no one's permission
- it is as yet unclear how this will play out, but hey - its better than what was there

a potential for the transfer of WMD was perceived in Iraq, and the UN last fall was invited to do what it had been stating for 11 years
- the UN declined
-> so understand the lesson: that the UN by its words and deeds has indicated, yet again, that it will talk - but not act

returning to the theme:
who else has WMD and has shown signs (past words and deeds) that they will provide such to others

can anyone say: North Korea ?
an interesting question: given the demonstrated impotence of the UN, why should the US get into another pissing contest with the advocates of appeasement ?
(please, let us learn from our experiences)

and when that mess has been dealt with we move briskly to the next exporter: Iran
anyone following their nuclear enrichment program ?
peaceful ?
Iran is the principal supporter of Hamas, and (also) dedicated to the eradication of Israel

Yes, the US military will be a growth industry for some years

Gmat
France gave us a beautiful statue, one of the defining symbols today of the US
Why now is she so unwilling to give the same to other peoples ?
Lets get off the government kick, what about the people of these countries
Afghanistan
Iraq
North Korea
Iran

Is their freedom worth nothing ?
(and yes, many more countries need adding to that list – scary, eh ?)

bigben2k · 03-19-2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigben2k
To state (or advance) that France is incapable of any type of significant defense is grossly exagerated, and only serves to demonstrate/express animosity over its position.

Quote:

Originally posted by phreenet
I think Kuwait or Canada could take France out if they had too. French tanks don't come with 5 reverse gears for nothing..

Thank you, for demonstrating my point.

Quote:

Originally posted by winewood
I would argue the point that the inspectors cant do their job without cooperation, and they are not getting the cooperation as intailed by previous resolutions. However that is the million dollar question isnt it?

That's why the UN needs to press the issue, and I have not seen them do anything but that. It is taking some time, but in the mean time, I still don't see an immediate threat.

The million$ question indeed: attack now and solve this once and for all, or try to get it right without firing a single shot, if possible?

gmat · 03-19-2003, 11:37 AM

Bill you're spot on the North Korea and Iran.
I'm sure that *everyone* would follow some kind of action in North Korea. Even a war (though this one would be difficult indeed, even for the oh-so-powerful USA).
Iran is giving ppl in the know some chills as well. And with reason...
Iraq: this was a dead-end situation, from the day US soldiers put the foot in the Gulf in preparation for war. From that day, asking Saddam to disarm completely was asking him to put down his trousers and bend down.

But as always, there's the "right of peoples to dispose of themselves". Carpet bombing is the worst solution. Ever.
Inducing and provoking (then supporting) a revolution has been done before. Could be done again.

BillA · 03-19-2003, 12:00 PM

the record of the US government in supporting revolutions has got to be the worst of any country in existence

our non-support of the Hungarian Revolution
our 'support' of the Bay of Pigs invasion
our 'support' of the Shia revolt in Iraq, and the Kurds
(an accurate listing would run to many pages)

why on earth would any revolutionary trust the US ?
-> why would any sane individual trust any government ?
a pox on the lot of them

you will have to argue for many hours to convince most in the US that the UN is worth any consideration at all
- because when push comes to shove, whose men and equipment are going ?

look at the per capita military spending in Europe
if there is no credible force, what's to project ?
a UN resolution ? or veto ?
sorry but the UN is a political organization, and that is all that it is
Rwanda
Yugoslavia
(insert another long list of horrors ignored here)
did you catch the BBC stories on the ‘rape camps’ in Zimbabwe ?
let’s see, which European head of state was he just shaking hands with ?
bah

winewood · 03-19-2003, 12:00 PM

Supporting one side but crying about a VERY similar situation isnt going to earn anyone any points. If the only thing that can do is cry when the US stands up for something, then slam them when they don't. Its a no win situation. In fact its two faced.

Bush is proving that the UN is toothless and isnt going to act. It can demand all it wants, but the same people who criticise the US for not fixing EVERY problem, are the same people who blame them when they fix another. The world cant dictate the batting order for a problem they are to cowardly to address. Gmat... Why isn't the UN doing something about N. Korea. Suddenly you support the US doing something about it? The UN is doing nothing except get kicked out, and watch the US. This is the main part of the problem. Everyone can point fingers, but only a few can and have the resolve to take care of the problem. If the US had parked troops in S. Korea for war, I am taking a leap here... I believe you would be in the exact same position, and France would be taking potshots at Bush.

And yes. Where is the UN? Why havent the taken this issue to heart? N. Korea isn't just a US issue is it? No. Enter the rest of the UN. "now why doesnt the US do something?"
Yes.. Bills right on target. However, when you are involved with so many conflicts abroad, no one can be right all the time. But better to be wrong with the best intentions, and at home standing for nothing. I vote for making a difference.

gmat · 03-19-2003, 12:20 PM

The UN is not a country. The UN has no army by itself. The UN is a democratic union of countries.
As a political instance, the UN made mistakes.
Do YOU wait for the UN to solve all the problems ? all your arguments above about how ppl blame the US can be reported on YOU for blaming the UN...
How it works. It's a democratic entity. Resolutions are submitted to vote. The majority is always right. That's how a democracy works.

" Bush is proving that the UN is toothless and isnt going to act."
It nevers acts by itself, because it's not a country... When a resolution is voted, members of the UN are asked to comply.

"Why isn't the UN doing something about N. Korea. Suddenly you support the US doing something about it?"
If the UN votes it, and diplomacy fails, i'm supporting a UN-led intervention, or at least seeding revolution there. As a member of the UN, the US will do something...

" The UN is doing nothing except get kicked out, and watch the US. This is the main part of the problem."
Yes. It's going backwards.

"If the US had parked troops in S. Korea for war,"
It's already the case

" I am taking a leap here... I believe you would be in the exact same position, and France would be taking potshots at Bush."
This is gratuitous, and completely unfounded statement. It's a luck for worlds diplomacy you're not an ambassador...

Bill: you're pointing out the failures, but the US had been quite successful in 'boosting' some revolutions in the past. One has to make some mistakes to learn. I think the CIA and russian services are quite competent in that domain now.

Winewood: you'll put a word of excuse for that nazi statement of yours. In Europe we take those things seriously.

BillA · 03-19-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gmat
. . . the UN...
How it works. It's a democratic entity. Resolutions are submitted to vote. The majority is always right. That's how a democracy works. . . . .

no. you are quite in error
the majority is nothing more than the group larger than the minority
being in the majority no more confers correctness or moral superiority than does being in the minority

in UN terms, you are substituting 'process' for 'substance'

does Mill's expression 'the tyranny of the majority' have no meaning ?
this is indeed the ‘problem’ with the ‘democratic system’, what happens when the majority is wrong ?
and it is a not uncommon occurance

Winewood
get your head out of your a*s and apologize

winewood · 03-19-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

How it works. It's a democratic entity. Resolutions are submitted to vote. The majority is always right. That's how a democracy works.

First of all lets get look at the ground rules. The UN isn't a democracy. Let be back that up. A democracy is an entity where free people are able to guide the paths of governement of a governing body by mandate of majority decision.
The UN is staffed by beurocrats. Beurocrats are not elected. They do not yield to majority will of the people they represent. Take Britian for instance. 85% oppose war. Brits beurocrats voted for it. Democratic? No. Does the ambassador represent its people? Yes. Does it represent their will? No. Were they elected to represent the people? No.
In fact the far majority of UN beurocrats are appointed by non-democratic or republic states that act on the volition of those that appoint them. If the majority of the vote in UN is "right" then that means the opinion of the non-people represented body is making the decisions. Do I support this FARCE of "democracy". No. You state that the UN isn't a government. I will argue that point, and your calling it a democracy is (without you realising it) you calling it a government. It is a governing body.
Does the majority make something right? If they voted for genocide of South Africa, would that be right? No. So consider the representatives, then consider WHAT or WHOM they represent.
*deep breath*
Since you fail to recognise that the UN has an army. Perhaps you should review the allotment of police forces that it currently has and can control. You said..
"When a resolution is voted, members of the UN are asked to comply." It seems that 'opinion' isn't valid to my understanding. Consider the fact that the UN authorized use of force if Saddam didnt comply. Who's force was it authorizing? It was a UN force. Not just a "US" force. Contrary to belief you cannot talk someone into submission unless a force is able to be called on.
Note to world: The US force is not at the worlds total disposal to deal with any conflict they see fit.
Don't like N. Korea? Do something about it. Expect the US to do it on behalf of the UN with US tax dollars to fund the bill? Get real.
Its comical that you think the US is here to serve the UN in that capacity.
As far as YOUR nazi comment gmat. Your the one who said it. I will not explain away what you bring up. I don't excuse YOUR words. If you think you can control what I think or state as an opinion, you are in a world of dissapointment. Billa. Read the post again my friend. His statement. His opinion on twisting words. He owns it. Gmat post at 11:16

gmat · 03-19-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winewood
The UN isn't a democracy. Let be back that up. A democracy is an entity where free people are able to guide the paths of governement of a governing body by mandate of majority decision.
The UN is staffed by beurocrats. Beurocrats are not elected

From the start you're wrong. UN representatives are members of each country's governement. Which was elected by its people. The UN doesn't work different than a parliament. And a parliament is what makes a democracy work.
Saying otherwise shows your will to despise the UN and put it at a lower level than the oh-so-grand-and-magnificent-US governement.
What's next ?
Claiming the US govermenent made a mistake will be considered as treason ? Terrorrism ?
This kind of reasoning is the grounds of facism.

Ah and Britain representatives *were* elected to represent the people. That explains the *slight* resentment towards them right now...
Where did I say 'the UN is not a governement" ??? I said "the UN is not a *country*" to support the fact that UN has no self resources, but rather those of supporting countries.
" If they voted for genocide of South Africa" -> what the hell. UN representatives aren't criminals. If they were France and and USA wouldn't even bother with the UN to begin with.
"you cannot talk someone into submission" -> But it's not about taking people into submission (like you seem to imply with the US over Europe btw) !!!! The USA choosed to be a member of the UN and by such to comply to its resolutions. All member countries did. Nobody forced them to do so.
There's something called "Worlds peace", and also "right of peoples". You seem to piss on that principles. Too bad.
Also, you don't want to admit that the US governement made a mistake. So if i follow your reasoning that makes the US a parody of democracy. And so forth for the UK and Spain...
"US force is not at the worlds total disposal to deal with any conflict they see fit. " -> Hey the same goes with countries towards the USA.... But from your previous posts you seem to imply the contrary
"Expect the US to do it on behalf of the UN with US tax dollars to fund the bill?" Generally member countries all contribute. The 1st gulf war was nearly entirely paid by coalition members.
"Its comical that you think the US is here to serve the UN in that capacity." -> It is not comical you think any country is here to serve the US in any capacity.

"If you think you can control what I think or state as an opinion" -> It's not controlling opinions. It's a public forum here. You're allowed a lot of things, but NOT directly insulting people or their family. That's a basic rule you did not follow.
"His opinion on twisting words" -> Twisting words ? I copy pasted your statement.

Finally: the UN is not the pet dog of the US. Nobody is, even the UK (or its people for instance). And you live on a limited planet. With nations. Which you should respect instead of putting down like "socialist countries" or "inferior race" as i begin to understand from your comments.

(PS) ah Bill didn't see your comments. Democracy has its flaws. But one must live with them, or endure another regime... It's the 'less worst' of the lot. That's why France, the USA, all EU nations, etc choosed Democracy.

winewood · 03-19-2003, 06:57 PM

Thanks for your participation gmat. However, it seems you now want to twist statements and get into a flame war. I don't wish to cast you in any light. I am not making you out to be evil. I dont dislike you in any form or fashion. However, it seems you are attempting to make this an something it is not, inciting that I am positioning myself higher in some form or fashion above whatever you represent. I am not here to placitate an irrational person, or defend from words in which I did not state. Hate is not what I am attempting to relay here, you seem hell bent on putting words in my mouth. This is wrong, disrespectful, and I refuse to honor your arguments with any kind of logic discussion which at moment seems to have escaped you. I'm sorry we couldn't have a civil conversation.

gmat · 03-19-2003, 07:04 PM

Winewood if you cant have an argument without having recourse to insults refrain from talking about politics.
If you can't understand why you insulted my family and the memory of French Resistance (and Freedom Fighters) it's sad.

phreenet · 04-29-2003, 10:38 PM

France was wrong, is wrong, however you want to phrase it. End of story, dot com.

phreenet · 04-29-2003, 10:41 PM

ohhh yeah, and after hearing ths from reuters:

Quote:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Cuba was reelected without opposition on Tuesday to the United Nations' top human rights body, prompting a fierce response by Washington that it was "like putting Al Capone in charge of bank security." More...

Which just makes me think how the UN is even more useless now. No doubht they did it to annoy the US after Gulf War v2.0. Like a bunch of little kids

Blackeagle · 04-30-2003, 12:21 AM

Winewood,

Good for you for sticking to your position.

Gmat,

"This kind of reasoning is the grounds of facism." Yet you are so very quick to claim being offended while spitting out comments like that one.

That along with your earlier reach to try and paint Winewood as "oweing" a apology to you and demanding such is BS.

You deserved no apology. In fact considering some of your posts where you are to quick to claim to be offended, I think it's just one of your methods of trying to win a point you otherwise have no hope of winning. So you cliam offense to cut short the other persons points.

Read this thread three times. More glad each time your tantrums gianed you nothing.

edit:

phreenet,

The deal with Cuba is sadly just another day as usual at the UN. Just one more reason they are increasingly disliked in this country.

03-19-2003, 12:00 PM	#34
winewood Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: in my chair Posts: 574	Supporting one side but crying about a VERY similar situation isnt going to earn anyone any points. If the only thing that can do is cry when the US stands up for something, then slam them when they don't. Its a no win situation. In fact its two faced. Bush is proving that the UN is toothless and isnt going to act. It can demand all it wants, but the same people who criticise the US for not fixing EVERY problem, are the same people who blame them when they fix another. The world cant dictate the batting order for a problem they are to cowardly to address. Gmat... Why isn't the UN doing something about N. Korea. Suddenly you support the US doing something about it? The UN is doing nothing except get kicked out, and watch the US. This is the main part of the problem. Everyone can point fingers, but only a few can and have the resolve to take care of the problem. If the US had parked troops in S. Korea for war, I am taking a leap here... I believe you would be in the exact same position, and France would be taking potshots at Bush. And yes. Where is the UN? Why havent the taken this issue to heart? N. Korea isn't just a US issue is it? No. Enter the rest of the UN. "now why doesnt the US do something?" Yes.. Bills right on target. However, when you are involved with so many conflicts abroad, no one can be right all the time. But better to be wrong with the best intentions, and at home standing for nothing. I vote for making a difference. __________________ -winewood-

03-19-2003, 06:57 PM	#39
winewood Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: in my chair Posts: 574	Thanks for your participation gmat. However, it seems you now want to twist statements and get into a flame war. I don't wish to cast you in any light. I am not making you out to be evil. I dont dislike you in any form or fashion. However, it seems you are attempting to make this an something it is not, inciting that I am positioning myself higher in some form or fashion above whatever you represent. I am not here to placitate an irrational person, or defend from words in which I did not state. Hate is not what I am attempting to relay here, you seem hell bent on putting words in my mouth. This is wrong, disrespectful, and I refuse to honor your arguments with any kind of logic discussion which at moment seems to have escaped you. I'm sorry we couldn't have a civil conversation. __________________ -winewood-

04-29-2003, 10:38 PM	#41
phreenet Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Gloucester, Virginia Posts: 356	France was wrong, is wrong, however you want to phrase it. End of story, dot com. __________________ Dual Pentium!!! 933@1107 Liquid Cooled.

03-19-2003, 11:16 AM	#27
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	"freedom isn't exactly a concern I see for the French people" -> YOU are going to retire that, Winewood. And now. The last people who said that about French were the Nazis. This kind of statement goes over the limits of acceptable. "Using the most accurate predictor of the future.. which is the past." THIS is the exact thinking what made France lose WWII so fast. And that loss you overstated all over the forums. Now. Without the French the US would be a UK colony. Without the French thinkers the US would be a kingdom, or some kind of dictature. We can go far like that. Using a completely different situation as a point of reference is ludicrous. WWII as about a rising superpower taking everyone around by speed. The war in Europe was about freeing Europe from the Nazis. In Iraq, it's about taking over oil resources. I don't see any element of comparison. Besides, after all the insults you (and others) dumped on the French, and the "we're the rulers of the world so STFU" attitude, are you still asking yourself why there's some kind of anti-american feeling floating around? Finally your statements about French army have no relation with the problem at hand. If France supported war, we would have sent what we had, and money, etc. And the veto at the UN has nothing to do with the size of our guns. Hopefully diplomacy doesn't work like that. (edit) Hey BB2K you got it all in 2 points nice

03-19-2003, 11:24 AM	#29
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	I'm just waiting for excuses for the Nazi statement.

03-19-2003, 11:25 AM	#30
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	how about another slant on this issue the 'problem' is the potential nexus between WMD and terrorism or between those who may supply such and those who may use such there was a direct link between 9/11 and the groups in Afghanistan, the US asked no one's permission - it is as yet unclear how this will play out, but hey - its better than what was there a potential for the transfer of WMD was perceived in Iraq, and the UN last fall was invited to do what it had been stating for 11 years - the UN declined -> so understand the lesson: that the UN by its words and deeds has indicated, yet again, that it will talk - but not act returning to the theme: who else has WMD and has shown signs (past words and deeds) that they will provide such to others can anyone say: North Korea ? an interesting question: given the demonstrated impotence of the UN, why should the US get into another pissing contest with the advocates of appeasement ? (please, let us learn from our experiences) and when that mess has been dealt with we move briskly to the next exporter: Iran anyone following their nuclear enrichment program ? peaceful ? Iran is the principal supporter of Hamas, and (also) dedicated to the eradication of Israel Yes, the US military will be a growth industry for some years Gmat France gave us a beautiful statue, one of the defining symbols today of the US Why now is she so unwilling to give the same to other peoples ? Lets get off the government kick, what about the people of these countries Afghanistan Iraq North Korea Iran Is their freedom worth nothing ? (and yes, many more countries need adding to that list – scary, eh ?)

03-19-2003, 11:37 AM	#32
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	Bill you're spot on the North Korea and Iran. I'm sure that everyone would follow some kind of action in North Korea. Even a war (though this one would be difficult indeed, even for the oh-so-powerful USA). Iran is giving ppl in the know some chills as well. And with reason... Iraq: this was a dead-end situation, from the day US soldiers put the foot in the Gulf in preparation for war. From that day, asking Saddam to disarm completely was asking him to put down his trousers and bend down. But as always, there's the "right of peoples to dispose of themselves". Carpet bombing is the worst solution. Ever. Inducing and provoking (then supporting) a revolution has been done before. Could be done again.

03-19-2003, 12:20 PM	#35
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	The UN is not a country. The UN has no army by itself. The UN is a democratic union of countries. As a political instance, the UN made mistakes. Do YOU wait for the UN to solve all the problems ? all your arguments above about how ppl blame the US can be reported on YOU for blaming the UN... How it works. It's a democratic entity. Resolutions are submitted to vote. The majority is always right. That's how a democracy works. " Bush is proving that the UN is toothless and isnt going to act." It nevers acts by itself, because it's not a country... When a resolution is voted, members of the UN are asked to comply. "Why isn't the UN doing something about N. Korea. Suddenly you support the US doing something about it?" If the UN votes it, and diplomacy fails, i'm supporting a UN-led intervention, or at least seeding revolution there. As a member of the UN, the US will do something... " The UN is doing nothing except get kicked out, and watch the US. This is the main part of the problem." Yes. It's going backwards. "If the US had parked troops in S. Korea for war," It's already the case " I am taking a leap here... I believe you would be in the exact same position, and France would be taking potshots at Bush." This is gratuitous, and completely unfounded statement. It's a luck for worlds diplomacy you're not an ambassador... Bill: you're pointing out the failures, but the US had been quite successful in 'boosting' some revolutions in the past. One has to make some mistakes to learn. I think the CIA and russian services are quite competent in that domain now. Winewood: you'll put a word of excuse for that nazi statement of yours. In Europe we take those things seriously.

03-19-2003, 07:04 PM	#40
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	Winewood if you cant have an argument without having recourse to insults refrain from talking about politics. If you can't understand why you insulted my family and the memory of French Resistance (and Freedom Fighters) it's sad.

04-30-2003, 12:21 AM	#43
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	Winewood, Good for you for sticking to your position. Gmat, "This kind of reasoning is the grounds of facism." Yet you are so very quick to claim being offended while spitting out comments like that one. That along with your earlier reach to try and paint Winewood as "oweing" a apology to you and demanding such is BS. You deserved no apology. In fact considering some of your posts where you are to quick to claim to be offended, I think it's just one of your methods of trying to win a point you otherwise have no hope of winning. So you cliam offense to cut short the other persons points. Read this thread three times. More glad each time your tantrums gianed you nothing. edit: phreenet, The deal with Cuba is sadly just another day as usual at the UN. Just one more reason they are increasingly disliked in this country.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)